You are here: / / JUDGE WHO DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT COULD DECIDE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT...
,

JUDGE WHO DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT COULD DECIDE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined it was appropriate for a judge to decide a summary judgment motion, despite the fact that another judge heard the oral argument:

The fact that oral argument was held before a different Justice than the Justice who ultimately decided the motion for summary judgment is not a proper basis for vacating the order granting summary judgment. Although Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a Supreme Court Justice “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge,” reversal is not warranted on this ground, because the Justice who granted the motion decided a purely legal question … . Marti v Rana, 2019 NY Slip Op 05011, First Dept 6-20-19

 

You might also like
WHETHER PLAINTIFF INHALED ENOUGH ASBESTOS TO CAUSE HIS CANCER WAS THE SUBJECT OF COMPETING SIMULATION STUDIES; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No Settlement—Attorney Lost Contingency Fee Based on Settlement Amount.
POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE CHARGE DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE DECRIMINALIZING SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (FIRST DEPT).
ARBITRABLE CLAIMS WHICH ARE INEXTRICABLY TIED TO CLAIMS ALREADY IN COURT SHOULD BE LITIGATED IN COURT.
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).
INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS.
THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ON LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, EVENT NOT RELATED TO THE FORCE OF GRAVITY.

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

DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’... BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO...