Cross motions and SJ

CPLR R. 2215 Relief Demanded by other than moving party

CPLR § 2001 Mistakes, omissions, defects, and irregularities

Daramboukas v Samlidis, 2011 NY Slip Op 03796 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in denying Osdoby's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her on the ground that it was incorrectly labeled a cross motion. Although "[a] cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking affirmative relief from a nonmoving party" (Mango v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 123 AD2d 843, 844; see CPLR 2215; Kleeberg v City of New York, 305 AD2d 549, 550), a technical defect of this nature may be disregarded where, as here, there is no prejudice, and the opposing parties had ample opportunity to be heard on the merits of the relief sought (see CPLR 2001; Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d 403, 404; Kleeberg v City of New York, 305 AD2d at 550; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282, 283). While the Supreme Court also denied Osdoby's motion on the ground that it was not supported by pleadings and other available proof, Osdoby incorporated by reference the pleadings and exhibits submitted by Albert in support of his original motion, and those pleadings and exhibits were therefore properly before the court (see Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177; Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098; Mahone v Washington, 17 AD3d 1059). On the merits, Osdoby made a prima facie showing, through her deposition testimony, that she could not be held liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. That testimony demonstrated that she was driving in a nonnegligent manner when her vehicle was struck in the rear by the white van driven by Manginaro, and that her vehicle did not come into contact with any of the vehicles involved in the second collision about 20 car lengths east of the location where she was struck (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]; Savarese v Cerrachio, 79 AD3d 725). In opposition, the plaintiffs, Manginaro, and Langaman failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court similarly erred in denying the Tam defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that it was incorrectly labeled a cross motion (see CPLR 2001; Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d at 404; Kleeberg v City of New York, 305 AD2d at 550; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d at 283). On the merits, the Tam defendants made a prima facie showing that Daniel Tam was lawfully stopped at a red light when his vehicle was struck in the rear, and that he had a nonnegligent explanation for coming into contact with other vehicles at the scene after his vehicle was struck in the rear (see Savarese v Cerrachio, 79 AD3d 725; Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d at 769; Ortiz v Haidar, 68 AD3d 953; Malak v Wynder, 56 AD3d at 623; Katz v Masada II Car & Limo Serv., Inc., 43 AD3d at 877). In opposition, the plaintiffs, Manginaro, and Langaman failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Fine v One Bryant Park, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 03659 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

It is undisputed that defendants failed to file the motion within the time period set by the assigned IAS judge. The motion court concluded that defendants failed to establish good cause for the delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212[a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). A motion court's exercise of its broad discretion in determining whether the moving party has established good cause for delay will not be overturned unless it was improvident (see Daley v M/S Capital NY LLC, 44 AD3d 313, 315 [2007]; Pena v Women's Outreach Network, Inc., 35 AD3d 104, 108 [2006]). Inasmuch as the record establishes that defendants could have easily determined which judge was assigned to the matter (see Giudice v Green 292 Madison, LLC, 50 AD3d 506 [2008]), the court's exercise of its discretion was not improvident.

Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 03805 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, as untimely, National Grange's cross motion for summary judgment. While the cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), "an untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds" (Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591-592; see Whitehead v City of New York, 79 AD3d 858, 860; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 17 AD3d 496, 497). In such circumstances, the issues raised by the untimely cross motion are already properly before the motion court and, thus, the nearly identical nature of the grounds may provide the requisite good cause (see CPLR 3212[a]) to review the merits of the untimely cross motion (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d at 592). Notably, a court, in deciding the timely motion, may search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212[b]).

Lyebyedyev v Hoffman, 2011 NY Slip Op 03813 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Term Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County, the defendant was required to make his motion for summary judgment no later than 60 days after the filing of the note of issue, unless he obtained leave of the court on good cause shown (see Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules, Part C[6], formerly Rule 13). Here, the defendant moved for summary judgment approximately 90 days after the note of issue was filed. Since the vague and conclusory assertions made by the defendant's attorney regarding the pendency of a motion to strike the note of issue and a delay in the defendant's signing and notarizing of his own deposition transcript were insufficient to constitute good cause, the Supreme Court erred in entertaining the summary judgment motion (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648; Cohen-Putnam Agency, Ltd. v Hudson Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., 55 AD3d 653; State Farm Fire & Casualty v Parking Sys. Valet Serv., 48 AD3d 550; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392; Pierre v Feldman, 41 AD3d 454, 455).

.

Disqualification, etc. 2106 too.

Midwood Chayim Aruchim Dialysis Assoc., Inc. v Brooklyn Dialysis, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 02639 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"The basis of a disqualification motion is an allegation of a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to a current or former client" (Rowley v Waterfront Airways, 113 AD2d 926, 927; see Matter of Kelly, 23 NY2d 368, 375-376; Ogilvie v McDonald's Corp., 294 AD2d 550, 552). However, "[d]isqualification denies a party's right to representation by the attorney of its choice" (S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 443; see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 131), and may create "significant hardships" for that party (Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 310; see Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d at 131; S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d at 443).

Accordingly, where the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) are invoked in litigation, courts "are not constrained to read the rules literally or effectuate the intent of the drafters, but look to the rules as guidelines to be applied with due regard for the broad range of interests at stake" (Niesig v Team I, 76 NY2d 363, 369-370; see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d at 443). It is the Supreme Court's responsibility to balance the competing interests, and "[t]he disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" (Falk v Gallo, 73 AD3d 685, 685; see Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 292; Matter of Erlanger [Erlanger], 20 NY2d 778, 779; Nationscredit Fin. Servs. Corp. v Turcios, 41 AD3d 802, 802; Flores v Willard J. Price Assoc., LLC, 20 AD3d 343, 344; Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp., 101 AD2d 268, 277). Under the circumstances present here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the defendant's attorney (see Campbell v McKeon, 75 AD3d 479, 480; Kushner v Herman, 215 AD2d 633, 633; Matter of Fleet v Pulsar Constr. Corp., 143 AD2d 187, 189; Lopez v Precision Papers, 99 AD2d 507, 508; cf. Morris v Morris, 306 AD2d 449, 452).

Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP v Longmire, 2011 NY Slip Op 02067 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Plaintiff law firm demonstrated that defendant's counsel played a vital role in the final settlement negotiations flowing from a settlement offer that plaintiff had allegedly previously procured and that defendant client later accepted, that the negotiations were an important part of the underlying dispute, that defendant's counsel was likely to be a key witness at trial, and that his proposed testimony would be adverse to his client's interests (see Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras v Lacher, 299 AD2d 64, 75-76 [2002]; Martinez v Suozzi, 186 AD2d 378 [1992]).

While plaintiff improperly submitted the affirmation, rather than affidavit, of a partner (see CPLR 2106), under the circumstances, "this defect was merely a technical procedural irregularity which did not prejudice the defendant" (see Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v Lent, 148 AD2d 408 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 702 [1989]; see CPLR 2001).

 

CPLR § 2001 from up on high

CPLR § 2001 Mistakes, omissions, defects, and irregularities

Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 02075 (Ct. App. 2011)

The bill that amended CPLR 2001 was introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Civil Practice. Its purpose was to allow trial courts to fix or, where non-prejudicial, overlook defects in the filing process, including the failure to acquire or purchase an index number so long as the applicable fees were eventually paid (see L 2007, ch 529). The Introducer's Memorandum states that the bill was offered in response to our decisions in Harris, Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown (89 NY2d 714 [1997]) and Matter of Gershel v Porr (89 NY2d 327 [1996]) (see Senate Introducer Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 2007, ch 529, at 5). Gershel and Harris both involved failure to pay the proper filing fee; in Fry, the plaintiff did not file a signed copy of an order to show cause along with his petition ^[FN3]. In each of these cases the correct initiatory papers were filed. As the Introducer's Memorandum emphasizes, the amendments to
section 2001 were not meant to

"excuse a complete failure to file within the statute of limitations. Moreover, in order to properly commence an action, a plaintiff or petitioner would still have to actually file a summons and complaint or a petition. A bare summons, for example, would not constitute a filing. The purpose of this measure is to clarify that a mistake in the method of filing, AS OPPOSED TO A MISTAKE IN WHAT IS FILED, is a mistake subject to correction in the court's discretion" (id. at 5-6 [capitalization in original] [emphasis added]).

Here, plaintiff never filed a summons and complaint. The closest he came was the proposed complaint attached to the petition he filed when seeking permission to file a late notice of claim, itself a prerequisite to the commencement of this action. Given the absence of a summons, there was "a complete failure to file within the statute of limitations," which CPLR 2001 does not allow a trial judge to disregard.^[FN4]

ss

properly considered the cross-motion: 2103 2001

CPLR R. 2103 Service of papers

CPLR § 2001 Mistakes, omissions, defects, and irregularities

Jones v LeFrance Leasing Ltd. Partnership, 2011 NY Slip Op 01441 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Contrary to Alliance's contention, the Supreme Court properly considered the plaintiffs' cross motion. Although the plaintiffs served their cross motion via media mail, as opposed to first class mail (see CPLR 2103), since Alliance opposed the cross motion on the merits, the defect in service was a mere irregularity that did not result in substantial prejudice to Alliance (see CPLR 2001; Piquette v City of New York, 4 AD3d 402, 403; see also Henry v Gutenplan, 197 AD2d 608). 

Mere Irregularities. CPLR § 2001. CPLR R. 2101(f)

CPLR § 2001 Mistakes, omissions, defects & irregularities

CPLR
R. 2101 Form of papers
(f) Defects in form; waiver

Martin v Castaneda, 2010 NY Slip Op 03881 (App. Div, 2nd, 2010)

After a hearing, in an unsigned report dated February 13, 2009, a
referee made certain findings of facts and conclusions of law. By notice
of motion dated March 20, 2009, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, to
confirm that portion of the referee's report which recommended that the
property be sold to effect partition. In support of their motion, the
plaintiffs submitted, among other things, a copy of the referee's report
and a transcript of the hearing, both of which contained the referee's
recommendations. In opposition, the defendant contended that the subject
branch of the motion should be denied because the report was unsigned
and unfiled. By order entered July 2, 2009, the Supreme Court granted
the subject branch of the plaintiffs' motion. The defendant contends
that the report was defective as it was unfiled (see CPLR
4320[b]; 22 NYCRR 202.44), and unsigned. We affirm the order insofar as
appealed from.

Although the referee did not sign his report, it was filed on
July 2, 2009, and, under the circumstances, any alleged defects were
mere irregularities and not fatal, as no substantial right of the
defendant has been or will be prejudiced (see CPLR 2001, 2101[f];
cf. Allison v Allison, 28 AD3d 406, 407, cert denied 549
US 1307; Matter of Lipsky v Koplen, 282 AD2d 462, 463; John
Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v 491-499 Seventh Ave. Assoc., 169 Misc
2d 493, 498-499).

In case anyone is curious, all of the cases the court cites to at the bottom involve referees.  I thought that maybe some of them would involve "mere irregularities" in other contexts, but alas, I was wrong.

False Start–CPLR § 304

CPLR § 304. Method of commencing action or special proceeding

Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 09616 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009) [Edit: 4/7/11. Affirmed by Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 02075 (Ct. App. 2011)

The plaintiff served the summons and complaint upon the defendants in this malpractice action without ever filing them or obtaining an index number and paying the filing fee for the action. Accordingly, the action was never validly commenced (see CPLR 304). Following the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and the plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to file the summons and complaint nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiffs' cross motion.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants raised timely objections to the plaintiff's failure to file and to the untimeliness of the action, since they asserted affirmative defenses regarding lack of jurisdiction and the expiration of the statute of limitations in their amended verified answer (see CPLR 3211[e]; see generally Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 NY3d 155, 159; cf. Sirkis v Cohen, 23 AD3d 369). Similarly, the defendants were not obligated to move to dismiss the action within 60 days following the service of their answer pursuant to CPLR 3211(e), since their objection was not based on improper service (see Sangiacomo v County of Albany, 302 AD2d 769, 772). Indeed, the plaintiff was free to move pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss the jurisdictional defense if he desired a more prompt resolution of the merits of that defense. [*2]

Furthermore, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the remedial language of CPLR 2001 to cure his error, since that statute does not excuse a complete failure to file within the statute of limitations, as occurred here (see Matter of Miller v Waters, 51 AD3d 113, 117-118; Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR, C304:3, 2009 Pocket Part, at 162, 165). Likewise, the plaintiff cannot rely on his filing of a proposed complaint in a prior proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim to act as the functional equivalent of a filing in this action (see generally Rybka v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 263 AD2d 403). The papers served in an action must conform in all material respects to the papers that are filed to commence it (see Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327, 332; Page v Marusich, 30 AD3d 871, 873; Louden v Rockefeller Ctr. N., 249 AD2d 25, 26). Here, the complaint served in this action dramatically differed, substantively and materially, from the proposed complaint which the plaintiff filed in the prior proceeding. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. Moreover, the court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to file the summons and complaint nunc pro tunc since, under the circumstances herein, the granting of that relief would impermissibly extend the statute of limitations (see CPLR 201; Bradley v St. Clare's Hosp., 232 AD2d 814, 815).

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 2221CPLR § 2001

CPLR § 2001 Mistakes, omissions, defects & irregularities

CPLR R. 2221 Motion affecting prior order
(d) A motion for leave to reargue

Ayoub v Ayoub, 2009 NY Slip Op 05164 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The preliminary conference order indicated that the issue of equitable
distribution was resolved and that all financial and property issues
except for child support were resolved by the parties' prenuptial
agreement. In her motion to modify the preliminary conference order,
plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause (see 22 NYCRR
202.16[f][3]) to raise the issue of equitable distribution of the
marital residence. Indeed, contrary to her contention, the prenuptial
agreement is clear that the only property subject to equitable
distribution is that titled in joint names, of which there is none.
While the agreement contains a separate section dealing with a marital
residence, the plain language of paragraph 4 of that section provides
for equitable distribution only if "the Marital Residence is purchased
as Jointly Owned Property."

Nor is relief available under CPLR 2001, since the waiver of
the issue of equitable distribution in the preliminary conference order
was not simply a slight mistake (see People ex rel. Di Leo v Edwards,
247 App Div 331 [1936]). Similarly, no relief is available under CPLR
2221. In her motion papers, plaintiff did not even assert that the
preliminary conference order reflected a misapprehension of law or
facts. Furthermore, the court correctly found that plaintiff's hiring
of new counsel did not present a new fact permitting her to revisit the
issues resolved in the preliminary conference order

Caraballo v Kim, 2009 NY Slip Op 05279 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The medical report of the injured plaintiff's treating chiropractor,
Dr. Alan C. Berger, dated May 8, 2006, did not constitute evidence
competent to oppose the defendants' motion because it was unaffirmed (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813; Niles v Lam Pakie Ho, 61 AD3d 657; Uribe-Zapata v Capallan, 54 AD3d 936; Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp., 45 AD3d 656; Verette v Zia, 44 AD3d 747; Nociforo v Penna, 42 AD3d 514; Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268).

…

The affirmation of Dr. Stuart I. Springer, the injured
plaintiff's treating physician, also failed to raise a triable issue of
fact…

The affirmed magnetic resonance imaging reports of Dr. Mark
Shapiro and Dr. Marc Liebeskind merely revealed the existence of disc
bulges at L3-4 and L4-5, a disc herniation at L5-S1, possible tears in
the posterior horns of the medial menisci of the right and left knees,
and a possible tear (rupture) of the anterior cruciate ligament in the
left knee. This Court has held that a herniated or bulging disc, or
even a tear in a tendon, is not evidence of a serious injury in the
absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical
limitations resulting from the injury and its duration (see Magid v Lincoln Servs. Corp., 60 AD3d 1008; Washington v Mendoza, 57 AD3d 972; Cornelius v Cintas Corp., 50 AD3d 1085, 1087; Shvartsman v Vildman, 47 AD3d 700; Tobias v Chupenko, 41 AD3d 583).
A tendon is defined as "[t]he cord of tough connective tissue which
forms the end of a muscle and which connects the muscle to the bone"
(5-T-TG Attorneys' Dictionary of Medicine [2005 ed] at 974). Tendons
"are bands of fibrous connective tissue" (5-15A Attorneys' Textbook of
Medicine [3d ed] at 15A.10). A ligament is defined as "[a] band of
tough but flexible tissue which serves to connect bones (as in the
formation of a joint), to hold organs in place, etc." (3-L Attorneys'
Dictionary of Medicine [2005 ed] at 2302). Ligaments, like tendons, are
"bands of tough, fibrous connective tissue" (4-13 Attorneys' Textbook
of Medicine [3d ed] at 13.10). Thus, injuries involving tendons and
ligaments must be treated similarly under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Evidence of the extent and duration of any alleged limitation arising
from injury to the plaintiff's discs or ligaments was clearly lacking
here. The deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff was
insufficient to supply such evidence (see Washington v Mendoza, 57 AD3d 972).

…

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in
denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew their opposition to
the defendants' motion for summary judgment (see Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d 748; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472).
A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered
on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR
2221[e][2]) and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure
to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e][3]; see Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d 748; Dinten-Quiros v Brown, 49 AD3d 588; Madison v Tahir, 45 AD3d 744).
While it may be within the court's discretion to grant leave to renew
upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion
(see Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d 748; J.D. Structures v Waldbaum, 282 AD2d 434; Cronwall Equities v International Links Dev. Corp.,
255 AD2d 354), a motion for leave to renew " is not a second chance
freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making
their first factual presentation'" (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d at 472, quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329; see Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d 748; O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492; Hart v City of New York, 5 [*3]AD3d 438; Carota v Wu,
284 AD2d 614). In this case, the plaintiffs failed to provide
reasonable justification for the failure to include the findings in the
supplemental affidavit of Dr. Berger on the original motion (see Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d 748; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472).

The bold is mine.

CPLR § 2001

CPLR § 2001 Mistakes, omissions, defects & irregularities

Mazzarelli v. 54 Plus Realty Corp., 2008 NY Slip Op 07219 (App. Div., 2nd)

The plaintiff’s
contention that the deposition transcript of the representative of the
defendant 54 Plus Realty Corp. (hereinafter the defendant) was in inadmissible
form and thus improperly considered by the motion court is without merit.
Although the defendant did not submit the complete transcript with its original
motion papers, the properly-certified and executed signature page of the
deposition transcript was submitted with its reply papers. The defendant
demonstrated that it forwarded the original signed transcript to the
plaintiff’s attorney approximately three months prior to moving for summary
judgment. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the
omission of the signature page from the original motion papers, which was
properly disregarded by the Supreme Court (see
CPLR 2001).

Compare this decision with Tu v Loan Pricing Corp., 2008 NY Slip Op 51945(U) (Supreme Court, New York County), one post below.

All the bold is mine.