Bryant v Citigroup Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bryant v Citigroup Inc. 2021 NY Slip Op 33067(U) December 20, 2021 Superme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: Index No. 34260/2019E Judge: Doris M. Gonzalez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2022 12:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 INDEX NO. 34260/2019E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX ----------------------------------------------------------------------X GEORGE BRYANT Plaintiff, DECISION and ORDER Index No. 34260/2019E - against CITIGROUP INC. , CITIBANK, 5660 BROADWAY LLC, SILHOU ETTE RESTAURANT LOUNGE CORP . and BROADWAY ANIMAL HOSPITAL OF RIVERDALE, PC, Defendant( s). ----------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. DORIS M. GONZALEZ Upon the foregoing papers, the defendants Citigroup Inc. and Citibank (collectively, "Citi") move for an order pursuant to CPLR 222l(e)(2), to renew a decision of the Court dated January 25, 2021, regarding Citi's motion for summary judgment, and upon renewal, granting the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff George Bryant ("Plaintiff') opposes the motion. Background By order dated January 25, 2021, this Court (Rosado, J.S.C.) inter alia denied a motion for summary judgment made by Citi . The Court held that ownership of the subject premises and parking lot where Plaintiffs accident occurred was not established. The Court also held that Citi failed to carry its initial summary judgment burden, because the lease it submitted in support of the motion was not in admissible form. Citi now moves for leave to renew its prior summary judgment motion due to a "change in the la ." Citi contends that shortly before the Court issued its decision, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks issued Administrative Order 27 /20, effective February 1, 2021 2 of 5 [*FILED: 2] BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2022 12:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 INDEX NO. 34260/2019E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2022 regardi ng among other things, new rules for summary judgment motions. Citi argues that the new rules now required motions of summary judgment to be supported by a separate statement of material facts . Citi argues that it could have submitted a statement of material facts asserting that there was no material issue as to ( 1) the genuineness of the lease, and (2) the fact that co-defendant 5660 Broadway LLC owned the property in question. Citi alleges that the Court should now accept these contentions and undisputed and grant Citi summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion on various grounds, including ( 1) Citi failed to establish that there has been a change in law that would change the prior determination and (2) even if renewal was granted, Citi still failed to carry its summary judgment burden. Applicable Law and Analysis CPLR 2221 (a) states that a "motion for leave to renew or to reargue a prior motion ... shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, unless he or she is for any reason unable to hear it.. ." In this case, while Justice Llinet M. Rosado issued the prior decision, she is unable to hear these motions because she has since been re-assigned to the Supreme Court Criminal Term. The motion was subsequently transferred to the undersigned due to the unavailability of Justice Mary Ann Brigantti. CPLR 2221 (e)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that a motion for leave to renew "shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination." A motion to renew on this ground is predicated on changes such as a "new statute taking effect or a defi nitive ruling on a relevant point of law issued by an appellate court that is entitled to stare decisis' (CPLR Practice Commentaries, by Professor Patrick M. Connors, McKinney's Cons. Laws of Y Annotated, CPLR 2221 :9 A, Time to Make Renewal Motion; 2020, citing Siegel & 2 3 of 5 [*FILED: 3] BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2022 12:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 Conno rs, INDEX NO. 34260/2019E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2022 ew York Practice § 449 [6th d. 2018]). uch a motion can also b bas d on a 'clarification of the decisional law (id., quoting Dinallo v. DAL Elec. 60 A.D.3d 620 [2d Dep't 2009][ internal quotation marks omitted]- Opalin ki v. City of ew York, 164 A.D.3d 1354, 1355 [2d De p't 2018]). In this case, Citi has not established that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determ ination. Citi s motion i based on the newly-enacted procedural rule to be foll o ed when making a motion for summary judgment (Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and th\! County Court, 22 YCRR 202.8-g). 22 YCRR 202.8-g(a) requires that a ummary judgment motion must be accompanied by "a eparate short and concise statem nt in numb r d paragraphs of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried. The rule goes on to require the papers opposing a summary judgment motion to similarly provide numbered paragraphs responding to the movant's statement of fact and if nece sary to set forth additional separate material facts (22 YCRR 202 .8-g[b ]). Statements of mat ri al facts must be followed by a citation to evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the mo tion (22 YCRR 202.8-g[d]). nle s a statement of material fact served by the mo mg party i, pecifically controverted, it will bed em d admitt d (22 YCRR 202.8-g[c]). The above rules however did not change the substantive law applicable to ummary judgment motions or the requirement that evid nc b submitted in admissible form (CPLR 3212 [b ]). Here, Justice Rosado denied Citi' s prior motion because, among other reasons the I a e that Citi ubmitted was inadmissible under CPLR 45 I 8(a). Thus, the Court held that Citi failed to establi h that it " was only responsible for its leased space and failed to offer any admissib le evid nc and/or case law for this Court to conclude otherwis ." The Court also concluded that summary judgment in favor of Ci.ti would be prematur . On the instant motion, Citi doe not 3 4 of 5 [*FILED: 4] BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2022 12:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 INDEX NO. 34260/2019E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2022 contend that Justice Rosado misapprehended or overlooked any point or law or fact in arriving at this conclusion, nor does it submit any new evidence. The purported ' new law" cited by Citi does not justify renewal of its prior summary judgment motion (see Ko/chins v. Evolution Markets, Inc. , 182 A.D .3d 408 410 [!5 1 Dept. 2020]). Conclu ion ccordingly it is hereby ORDERED that Citi ' s motion to renew is denied. This constitutes the Decision and order of this Court. E TER Dated: Doris M. Gonzalez, J.S.C. 4 5 of 5

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.