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
Knowledge that Water Will Be Tracked In Is Not Constructive Knowledge of a Dangerous Condition—Property Owner Is Not Required to Cover All of the Floor with Mats or Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain
911 CALL MADE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) BASED ON PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR WAS WAIVED BY DEFENDANT’S THREE-YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING THE MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM A TIRE SWING IN THE VILLAGE PLAYGROUND; THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (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