Q C. DIAMOND THOMAS, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CARLITA THOMAS AND CARLITA THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY, BRION ERBY, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CARLITA THOMAS AND CARLITA THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY, JOHNIECE ERBY, CARLITA THOMAS, MEAGAN HENRIQUEZ, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN LIZETTE HENRIQUEZ AND LIZETTE HENRIQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, res v. GEZA M. GYOROK AND CHIRIANJIB NATH, app

2011-3277 Q C. DIAMOND THOMAS, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CARLITA THOMAS AND CARLITA THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY, BRION ERBY, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CARLITA THOMAS AND CARLITA THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY, JOHNIECE ERBY, CARLITA THOMAS, MEAGAN HENRIQUEZ, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN LIZETTE HENRIQUEZ AND LIZETTE HENRIQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, res v. GEZA M. GYOROK AND CHIRIANJIB NATH, app — Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 12, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied, as untimely, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

2011-3277 Q C. DIAMOND THOMAS, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CARLITA THOMAS AND CARLITA THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY, BRION ERBY, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN CARLITA THOMAS AND CARLITA THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY, JOHNIECE ERBY, CARLITA THOMAS, MEAGAN HENRIQUEZ, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN (14) BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN LIZETTE HENRIQUEZ AND LIZETTE HENRIQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, res v. GEZA M. GYOROK AND CHIRIANJIB NATH, app — Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 12, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied, as untimely, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the merits of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal