Summary
This Appellate Division decision reverses a trial court order denying a defendant's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The court ruled that the trial court improperly required the filing of a note of issue before considering a summary judgment motion, contrary to CPLR 3212(a). On the merits, the appellate court granted the motion, finding the defendant established her prima facie entitlement to dismissal and the opposing parties failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether CPLR 3212(a) requires a note of issue before a party may move for summary judgment.
- Whether the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Holdings
- A note of issue is not a prerequisite to a motion for summary judgment; a party may move once issue has been joined under CPLR 3212(a).
- The plaintiff failed to submit admissible evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment is proper.
Key quotations
“CPLR 3212(a) provides that any party may move for summary judgment once issue has been joined. The court may 'set a date after which no such motion may be made' which must be at least 30 days after the filing of a note of issue (CPLR 3212[a]). The court has no authority to require the filing of a note of issue as a prerequisite to a motion for summary judgment, since CPLR 3212(a) clearly states that a motion for summary judgment may be made once issue has been joined.” (*2)
Factual background
The plaintiff, Geneva Jackson, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Karen Jackson. While slowing for traffic ahead, the vehicle was rear‑ended by a vehicle owned by Mohammed Islam and operated by Mohammed Mainuddin, causing injuries to the plaintiff.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County denied the defendant Karen Jackson's motion for summary judgment on the ground that a compliance conference order stayed any motions pursuant to CPLR 3212 pending the filing of a note of issue. Jackson appealed the denial.