You are here: / / Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption...
,

Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that Supreme Court improperly denied defendant’s [Eastern Athletic’s] motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff had fallen off an exercise ball during an exercise class.  The Second Department found plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court ruled the deposition transcripts submitted by the defendant were inadmissible because they were not certified, a ground that had not been raised by the parties.  The Second Department held that a dispositive motion can not be denied on a ground that was not raised by the parties:

Here, the Supreme Court denied the subject motion for summary judgment on a ground that the parties did not litigate. The parties did not have an opportunity to address the issue relating to the certification of the plaintiff’s deposition transcript, relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying that dispositive motion. The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process. It is significant that, in Misicki v Caradonna (12 NY3d 511, 519), the Court of Appeals cautioned the judiciary that “[w]e are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” (id. at 519).

The Supreme Court erred in denying Eastern Athletic’s motion for summary judgment by deciding that the plaintiff’s deposition transcript was uncertified and, therefore, inadmissible, where that ground of admissibility was not raised by the plaintiff herself. Notably, the plaintiff’s deposition transcript recites that the plaintiff was duly sworn. Moreover, in civil cases, “inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection may be considered and given such probative value as, under the circumstances, it may possess” … .

Had the plaintiff argued in opposition to Eastern Athletic’s motion that her deposition transcript was inadmissible because it was uncertified, Eastern Athletic could have submitted a certification in its reply papers and, if the plaintiff were not prejudiced, the Supreme Court may have considered it … . Eastern Athletic’s failure to submit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the plaintiff’s deposition was an irregularity and, as no substantial right of a party was prejudiced, the court should have ignored the defect (see CPLR 2001). Rosenblatt v St George Health & Racqetball Assoc LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02917, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

You might also like
NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SEVERAL COUNTS CHARGING CONTEMPT WERE RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE TRIAL EVIDENCE, COUNTS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DIGNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS ACT (DASA) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR IN-SCHOOL BULLYING AND HARASSMENT (SECOND DEPT),
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH A FORECLOSURE ACTION USUALLY ACCELERATES THE DEBT AND STARTS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CLOCK, HERE THE DEFENDANTS-BORROWERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DUE (THE 2009 COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUBMITTED); THEREFORE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION IS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE CRITERIA FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION BASED UPON A TORT COMMITTED “WITHIN THE STATE” CLARIFIED; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE OUT-OF-STATE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MEMBERS OF AN LLC WHICH SOLD N95 MASKS TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THE QUALITY OF THE MASKS WAS MISREPRESENTED IN AN EMAIL TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Email Acknowledging Debt Raised Question of Fact About Whether Period of Limitations... Defense Counsel’s Denial of Defendant’s Assertion He Was Forced...