Source: https://bruteforcelawyer.com/page/119/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:02:06+00:00

Document:
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs.
related action upon the appellants' attorney pursuant to CPLR 308(5).
properly before this Court and, in any event, is without merit.
There you have it. Impracticability is the key.
I'm sorting through the cases that have made it to the Slip Ops. Look for them tonight or tomorrow.
I know I've missed a few days, but, it hurts me more than it hurts you. Really.
conclude that this proceeding was timely commenced.
other form of service permitted by law" (11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [e] ).
reviewed' " (id. at 441, quoting Matter of Bianca v Frank, 43 NY2d 168, 173).
["(The operative date was date on which the arbitration) award . . .
of the award was the date on which it was mailed to the attorney.
was sought to be reviewed, and that would be an untenable distinction.
or certified mail, return receipt requested.
2. I took the cites out to save space. You can find them by clicking the hyperlinked case.
All the bold is mine. The footnotes are mine as well.
Have a look at this post over at New York Legal Update, where Thomas Swartz parses the legal mumbo jumbo and makes the import of the decision clear.
playing tennis at a facility owned and operated by defendants.
granting plaintiff the relief sought (see Tomasello v 64 Franklin, Inc., 45 AD3d 1287, 1288; Enstrom v Garden Place Hotel, 27 AD3d 1084, 1085). We therefore modify the order accordingly.
adversary ha[d] an opportunity to inspect them' . .
thereby aggrieved". Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714, 716 (1986); Matter of Maurer v State Emergency Management Office, 13 AD3d 751, 753 (3rd Dept 2004).
that the City Council adopt a formal resolution one way or the other.
(2) an action upon a contractual obligation or liability.
may deem the contract breached and immediately sue for damages (see American List Corp. v. U.S. News & World Report, 75 NY2d 38, 550 NYS2d 590, 549 NE2d 1161 ; De Lorenzo v. Bac Agency Inc., 256 AD2d 906, 908, 681 NYS2d 846, 848 [3rd Dep't 1998]; Long Is. R.R. Co. v. Northville Indus. Corp., 41 NY2d 455, 463, 393 NYS2d 925, 362 NE2d 558 ).
prejudicial to the wrongdoer" (Ga Nun, 202 [*3]NY at 490-491, 96 N.E. at 101 – 102, citing Hochster v. De la Tour, 2 Ellis & Blackburn, 678). For the above reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
All the bold is mine, except for the word "DENIED".
In any motion for summary judgment based upon the SOL expiring on a breach of contract action, the inquiry as to when the SOL began to run starts at the breach–the date of the breach must be shown before any calculation can be made. Here, defendant tried to argue that the breach occurred when it denied the claim and that the SOL accrued from that at. The Court disagreed.
I'm all but certain that this will wind up being appealed (It isn't my case, in case you're curious). Look for an Appellate Term decision on this in the near future.
Facts unavailable to opposing party.
such other order as may be just.
The footnote and the bold are mine. Sometimes having the section in front of you can make a decision easier to understand or make the section's application clear.
action (see CPLR 317; Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725; Brockington v Brookfield Dev. Corp., 308 AD2d 498; Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d 404, 405).
Generally motions to vacate pursuant to CPLR § 317 are less frequent than those pursuant to § 5015. When making a motion under CPLR § 317 it is important to take note of the peculiar requirements of that section.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 317
 § 5015
 § 317