You are here: / / Rationale for Allowing a Late Motion for Summary Judgment When It Is Identical...

Rationale for Allowing a Late Motion for Summary Judgment When It Is Identical in Substance to a Timely Motion for Summary Judgment Made by Another Party Explained

The Second Department determined an untimely motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.  The court explained that an untimely motion may be entertained when it is identical in substance to a timely summary judgment motion made by another party in the action.  But that was not the case here.  The timely motion made by the MTA defendants, who were deemed not liable, did not determine the liability of the LIPA defendants.  Therefore, plaintiff’s untimely motion for summary judgment against the LIPA defendants could not “rely” on the motion made by the MTA defendants:

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was made more than 90 days after the filing of the note of issue, in violation of the terms of a certification order requiring motions for summary judgment to be filed within 90 days of the filing of a note of issue (see CPLR 3212[a]…). Although an untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court, in the exercise of its discretion, where a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds …, that rule did not apply here. The reason why an untimely motion for summary judgment may be considered if another party made a motion on nearly identical grounds is that, pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), the court has the authority, on a motion for summary judgment, to search the record and award relief to a nonmoving party … . In the instant case, the MTA defendants, the original movants, established as a matter of law that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident. However, the fact that the MTA defendants were not at fault in the happening of the accident did not mean that the LIPA defendants were at fault and, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the LIPA defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the LIPA defendants should have been denied as untimely.  Williams v Wright, 2014 NY Slip Op 05172, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAVE POSSESSION OF THE VENOGRAM USED TO DIAGNOSE A BLOCKAGE IN A VEIN IN DEFENDANT’S LEG; PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE, BASED ON A LINE OF DUTY REPORT, THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOCATION OF PETITIONER’S SLIP AND FALL, THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY A DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED RAPE OF PLAINTIFF ON SCHOOL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING BECAUSE OF PEBBLES AND WET GRASS ON THE SOCCER FIELD (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Court Review of Disciplinary Actions Taken by a Private School
EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND 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

Criteria for Discovery from Non-Party Explained/Criteria for Discovery of Trade... Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient