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
INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Requests to be Deposed (in China) by Remote Electronic Means and to Use a Video Transcription of the Deposition In Lieu of Testifying at Trial Should Not Have Been Denied
AUDIT TRAIL, I.E., METADATA SHOWING WHO ACCESSED PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS, WHERE AND WHEN THEY WERE ACCESSED, AND ANY CHANGES TO THE RECORDS, WAS DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT AFTER SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).
THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S UNSAFE LANE-CHANGE, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Precedent Precluded Denial of Benefits Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in the...