You are here: / / THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE...
, ,

THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prohibition against successive summary judgment motions applied and the second motion should have been denied:

“Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” … . “Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion” … . “Rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means” … . “Successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment” … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Carpenter, 2020 NY Slip Op 07426, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

You might also like
Insufficient Proof Plaintiff Was Defendant’s Special Employee
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VICTIM’S EYE INJURY ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF ‘SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY;’ BASED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY COUNTY COURT TO DENY DEFENDANT’S RESENTENCING PURSUANT TO THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DLRA) WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION FAVORING RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE BANK; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE SEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION WHICH THE JUDGE IMPOSED SUA SPONTE, DESIGNATION DELETED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

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

THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST PHYSICAL-THERAPY DEFENDANTS SOUNDED... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL...