Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order denying the plaintiff leave to file a late motion for summary judgment in a construction-related personal injury action. The court held that post-deposition discovery concerning a possible unauthorized-work defense was essential to the motion and constituted good cause for the delay, remanding for a determination of the summary judgment issues on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying leave to serve and file the late motion. The plaintiff established good cause because the post-deposition discovery he sought was essential to the proposed motion and related to a possible defense to his Labor Law claims.
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff established good cause under CPLR 3212(a) for leave to serve and file a late motion for summary judgment.
- Whether post-deposition discovery concerning a possible unauthorized-work defense was essential to the plaintiff's proposed summary-judgment motion and therefore supported good cause for the late filing.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (11)
- Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652(followed)
- Navarro v Damac Realty, LLC, 202 AD3d 1100, 1101(followed)
- Johnson v Peconic Diner, 31 AD3d 387, 388(followed)
- McNally v Beva Cab Corp., 45 AD3d 820, 821(followed)
- Espejo v Hiro Real Estate Co., 19 AD3d 360, 361(followed)
- Vega v Renaissance 632 Broadway, LLC, 103 AD3d 883, 885(followed)
- Garcia v Bleeker St. Gardens, LLC, 188 AD3d 830, 831(followed)
- Mondesir v Sterling, 149 AD3d 1067, 1068(followed)
- He Ping Shao v Cao Zhao Wei, 118 AD3d 943, 944(followed)
- Tafsiou v Arms Acres, 95 AD3d 995, 996(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…