Thorpe v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Thorpe v City of New York 2005 NY Slip Op 30491(U) November 3, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 116924/03 Judge: Doris Ling-Cohan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] ,NNED ON 1111512005 E ri; SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK- N PRESENT: Hon. DORIS LING-COHAN, Justlce YORK COUNTY PART 62 GEORQE THOFIPE, INDEX NO. 116924103 MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 MOTION CAL.NO. Plalntlff, -v- CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION and NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY, Defendants. The followlng papers, numbered 1 to 4 were resd on thle motion to/for : partlal summary judgment, mW 2 - Notice of Motion/Ordsr to Show Cause - Affldsvlts Exhlblta Answering Affldavita - Exhlbka (Memo) Replying Affldavlta (Reply Memo) Croars Motion: [ 1 Yes [ X ]No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion Is denied, for t k reasons set forth h below. Backmound Plaintiff, George Thorpe, brings this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained on March 17,2003 when he fell fiom a window ledge at P.S. 38, located at 232 East 103rdStreet in New York, New York. Plaintiff has moved for partial summaryjudgment on his claim pursuant to Labor Law 5 240 (1). This motion has been stayed, by prior orders of this Court, pending a determination of defendants application, brought by order to show cause, for additional discovery. The relevant facts and procedural developments in this litigation are set forth in the decision and order of this Court granting, in part, defendants application for additional discovery. 1 [* 2] /- Discussion Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Justices of The New York County Supreme Court, Civil Branch (Non-Commercial Division), all motions for summary judgment must be made no later than 60 days after the filing of the note of issue (see also CPLR 3212 [a] ). In the instant case, plaintiff filed his motion for partial summaryjudgment on or about November 12,2004, more than 60 days after August 10. 2004, when he filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness. This matter comes squarely within the principles announced by the Court of Appeals in Brill v City ofNew York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), to prevent the filing of eleventh-hour summary judgment motions , a practice that ignores statutory law, disrupts trial calendars, and undermines the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice (id.at 650-651). In Brill, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Supreme Court should not have considered the merits of a summary judgment motion brought by the City of New York almost one year after the filing of the note of issue, as the City gave no explanation for filing the motion after the 120-day limit specified in CPLR 3212 (a). The Court of Appeals stated, We conclude that good cause in CPLR 3212 (a) requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion - a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness - rather than simply permitting meritorious, nonprejudicial filings, however tardy ... No excuse at all, or a perfunctory excuse, cannot be good cause (Brill v City ofNew York, 2 NY3d at 652; see also Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725,726 [2004]; Perini COT. v City o New York, 16 AD3d 37,40 [ lstDept 20051). f In the instant matter, plaintiff has failed to provide any reason whatsoever for his delay in moving for partial summary judgment until more than 60 days after filing the note of issue, as prescribed by the Rules of this Court. In view of plaintiff s failure to establish good cause for CPLR 3212 (a) provides, in pertinent part: [tlhe court may set a date after which no such motion [for summary judgment] may be made, such date being no earlier than thirty days after the filing of the note of issue. If no such date is set by the cowt, such motion shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown (parenthetical supplied). 2 [* 3] I' his late partial summaryjudgment motion, this Court need not address the merits of this motion I (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d at 65 1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further ORDERED that, within thirty days of entry, defendants shall serve upon plaintiff a copy of this decision and order, together with notice of entry. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: ENTER: ,& I , . Dorls Ling-Cohan, JSC Check One: [ I FINAL DISPOSITION [ X 1 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION Check if Approprlate: [ ] DO NOT POST [ I REFERENCE H:\Supreme Court\Summary Judgment\Thorpe.NYC - late - deny.wpd 3 I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.