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
Defective Handrail Could Have Been Factor in Plaintiff’s Injuries.
TRIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE RULING THAT TWO FACIALLY AMBIGUOUS RELEASES EXECUTED BY PRIOR OWNER OF THE GAS STATION APPLIED TO THE CONTAMINATION OF THE PROPERTY BY LEAKED GASOLINE; THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE GAS STATION COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RECOVER THE CLEANUP COSTS FROM THE DEFENDANT GASOLINE SUPPLIER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PLYWOOD COVERING A SMALL HOLE; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CROSSWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
OKAY TO REPLACE PART-TIME LOBBY ATTENDANTS WITH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Second Foreclosure Action Not Prohibited Where First Is Not Pending and Did Not Result in a Judgment

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