You are here: / / MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS...
,

MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS AND CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; WITNESS-CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE.

The First Department, over a partial dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined neither plaintiff nor defendant was entitled to summary judgment in this contract dispute. Defendant, KLT, represented a concert artist, Akon, who cancelled a performance, allegedly due to illness. The question was whether, under the terms of the contract, plaintiff was entitled to its money back. KLT moved for summary judgment, arguing that the “force majeure” clause applied and plaintiff was not entitled to relief. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment alleging breach of contract. The court found that KLT's proof of Akon's illness was insufficient and summary judgment was properly denied for that reason. The court went on to find Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff's cross-motion because plaintiff did not demonstrate illness was not the reason for the cancellation of the concert. The decision presents another example of how appellate courts analyze summary judgment motions. Plaintiff could not rely on the gaps in KLT's proof of illness. Rather plaintiff was required to affirmatively prove illness was not the reason for the cancellation. The court further noted that witness-credibility cannot be taken into account at the summary judgment stage (the dissent argued Akon's testimony about illness was not to be believed):

… [P]laintiff, in its cross motion for summary judgment, was required to establish that Akon was able to perform at the concert and was not unable to do so due to sickness. Instead, plaintiff merely pointed to gaps in KLT's evidence — the missing medical records that would have proven Akon was ill, and thus its cross motion was improperly granted … .

The dissent merely points to additional gaps in KLT's evidence, such as proof of travel arrangements to demonstrate Akon intended to travel to Brussels [to perform the concert], and notes the limited value of the affidavit of Akon's surgeon. However, these gaps do not equate to plaintiff meeting its burden to establish an absence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether Akon was ill. Plaintiff acknowledges that it lacks any documentary evidence refuting that Akon was unable to perform, and has no evidence that he was physically capable of performing. The dissent, like the Supreme Court, appears to completely dismiss the value of Akon's deposition testimony, yet it is “not the court's function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” … . Belgium v Mateo Prods., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02730, 1st Dept, 4-12-16


You might also like
Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Is Not Identity Theft Where the Card Owner’s Identity Is Not Otherwise Assumed/Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Can Constitute Possession of Stolen Property
EVEN WHERE A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY PLED THE COURT WILL SEARCH THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HERE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE THERE WAS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (FIRST DEPT).
COVERAGE AT ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICY EXCLUSION (WHICH WAS THEN ADDED BACK IN BY AN ENDORSEMENT); BECAUSE THE COVERAGE WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE POLICY A TIMELY DISCLAIMER WAS REQUIRED.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE MADE “UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF” DO NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE DETAILED STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE REVISED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT (RLPA) PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNSIGNED PURPORTED AMENDMENT TO THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CASE COULD BE PRESENTED WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT UNAVAILABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE A COLLEAGUE WAS IN COURT REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DEFENSE APPLIED TO A REAR-END COLLISION. DESTRUCTION (SPOLIATION) OF EVIDENCE WARRANTED STRIKING THE PLEADINGS.