Rodriguez v Flushing Town Ctr. III, L.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rodriguez v Flushing Town Ctr. III, L.P. 2013 NY Slip Op 34026(U) February 11, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 20213/10 Judge: Arthur M. Schack Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] At an IAS Tenn, Pan 27 of the Supreme Court of the Swe of New Yori<. held in and for lhe County o f Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on !he 11th day of February 2013 PRESENT: HON. ARTI lUR M. SCHACK Justict JUAN RODRJGUEZ, DECISIO:-< AND ORDER PlaintilT, Cal. No. 37 Mot. Seq.# 4 Index No. 20213/IO FLUSHING TOWN CENTER Ill, L.P., THE TJX COMPANll!S, INC., and MUSS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendants. Pansa nurnb,red 1 10 I were read on this motion: Notict of Motion/Exhibits._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Notice ofC1·oss ~Motio1VE.xh.ibits._ _ __ _ _ __ Affirmation in Oppositioo!Exhibits_ __ _ _ __ Reply_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ · I· Pfloers Numbered: I [* 2] In this Labor Law action, the insl8nt motion by plaintiff JUAN RODRIGUEZ for partial summary judgment on liabilily, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212 (a), against defeodanti. FLUSHING TOWN CE1''TER ID. L.P. and MUSS DEVELOPMENT, LLC is denied as untimely. The instant motion violates CPLR Rule 32 t2 (•)and Kings County Supreme Coun Uoifonn Civil Term Ruic C (6). CPLR Rule 3212 (a) states: T ime; kind of action. Any party may move for summary judgment in any action, after issue has been joined: provided however, that lite court m1y .tef a date 1ifter JPhie/, no s11ch motion 1rn1y bl! 11rade ~ 1 such date being no earlier lh>n thirty days a~ the filing of the no«: of is.sue. If no suclt date is set by tire court, such motion shall be mode no later than one hundred twenty days aflu tht ftling of the n ott ofisrue, except .,;1h leave of court 011 good cause shown , [Emphasis added] Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Tenn C (6), effective January 2, 20 ! 0, and derived from the prior Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rule 13, suucs: Ps>:tt.Note of l>sue St1ni1 nary J ud!!lllenl ~10.tion : ln casts where the Cil)' of New York is a defendant and is represented by the Tort Division of the Corporation counsel's office, summary judgement motions may -2- -- [* 3] OW- roil- <It lolVI) p!l'tJ.'aW ! , • be made no later than 120 days after the filing of a Note of Issue. In all other matters, including third pany actions, motion.f for surr1mary judg~nt mby be mndt no later than 60 days after h•Jiling of a Nole ofIssue. In both instances the abo\'e time /imitations may only I be txJended by the Court upon good cause shoKln. Sec CPLR 3212 (a). [Emphasis addtd]. Discussion In the instant action. pl•intiffJlJAN ROORlGUUZ made the instant partial summary judgment motion on Oeecmbcr 3, 2012, 89 days post noic or issue. PlaintiJI JUAN RODRIGUEZ did not mokc any showing of good cause for leave of this l.A.S. J ! Pan for an extension of time to make the instmll summaiy judgment motion more than 60 days beyond the September 5, 2012 filing of the note of issue. The Coun in dealing witll the "60-da)' rule," '"ithout any good cause shown for an extension for making a summnry judgment motion cannot exlend the deadline for a summtlf)• judgment motion. Lost year, the CollII in Bivona v Deb 's DiscoW?J Furniture of NY. UC (90 ADJd 796 (2d Dept 201 ID, instructed at 796: "In the absen~ of 3 showing ofgood cause for the delay in filing a motion for summary judgmeo~ 'the court has no discretion -3- I -- [* 4]•»Jtll _ _ _ _.,,."1) r I .. ' . to entertain e\·en a mttitorious nonprejudical motion for summary judgmem."' Gretnpolnt Props, Inc. v Carter. 82AD3dI 157, I 158 [201 I), quoting John P. Krupski & Bros., Inc. v Town Bd. 11/Southold, 54 AD3d 899. 90 1 [2008); .rte Brill v CiryofNew York. 2 NY3d 648, 652 (2004]). Hen:, lhc dcfondAnt failed to establish "good c3USe" for lhc delay in serving and filing its motion [CPi,R 3212 (aj). Accordingly, lhe Supreme Court prop<:rly denied, as untimely, lhe defendont's motion for summary judgment dis missing the complaint (see /Jr/// v City of New York. 2 NY3d at 652; Castillo v Valente, 8) AD3d 1080 (201 1]; Riccardi v Cl'S Pharmacy, Inc., 60 AD3d 838 (2009)). The instant motion is late and untimely. Failure to comply with court-ordered time frames must be t•keo seriously. It cannot be ignored. There arc consequences for ignoring court rules aod time frames. The l I l Court of Appeals, in Gibbs v Sr Barnabas Hwp.. 16 NY3d 74. 81 [20 10), inslnlcted: As this Coun bas repeatedly emphasized, our COUtl system is dependent on all parties enpgro in linganon abiding by the rules of proper practice (see e.g. Brill v City ofNew York, 2 NY3d 748 ['.!004); + [* 5] ' I I l' I l . Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [ 1999)). The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the couns and the adjudic-0tion of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the 1 pOSition of having to order enforcement remedies lo respond to the l 1 I i • delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they rq>rcsenL Chronic noncompliance with deadlines '' I . ' breeds disrespect for 1he dictates of the Civil Practice L..aw nnd Rules ar a c.uJturc in \11hich cases can linger fOr years \vithout resolution. ld Funhermorc, those lawyers who engage their best efl'ons to comply with practice rules arc also effectively penalized because they must ' I ! • I somcho\\ explain to their client~ \\ihy the)• cannot secure timcl) 1 1 • responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads lo the erosion I I of their attorney-clicot rclntionships as \vc:LI. I I I I "Litigation cannot be conducted efficiently if deadlines arc not taken seriously, a."l.d we nuke c:lcar again, as ''-e ~vc several times before, tlutt disregard of deadlines should not 1 I ' and Nii// no1 be IO/erated (ste Mictli v Staie Farm MUI. Auto lru. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [20G4]; Brill v Ciry ofNew York, 2 NY3d 748 (2004]; Ki/rl v Pfrffer, 94 NY2d 118 .5. _,,,,_ [* 6] ' .. . ( 1999D (Emphasis added}." (Andrea v Ar1t0ne. Hedin. Ca.sur, Kennedy and Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects. P.C., 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005]). ''As we made clear in Brill, and underscore here. st:\tutory tin1e frruncs -- like court-ortler ti1ne frames (see Kihl v P feffer, 94 NY2d I 18 (19991) -- are not options, they are requirements, ro be taken seriously by tire parties. Too many pages of the Rej)Of'tS. and hours of the courts. are taken up with deadlines that are simply ignored [Emphasis added]." (,\ficeli "' n6726). ' There.fore. the instant summary judgment motion is denied. (See Mayorquin v AP Development, l lC, 92 AD3d 849 (2d Dept 2012); Bivona v Bob's Discount Furm'ture of l NY, LLC, supra; Deberry-Hall v County ofNassau, 88 A.03d 634 [2d Dept 201 1); Castillo v Valente, supra; Polnnct'J v Cr~.sron Avenue Pro~rti«s, lttc., 84 AD3d 1337 (2d DePI 1011); Riccardi v CVS Pharmacy. Inc., suprtr, Fingu v Saal, S6 A.03d 606 [2d Dept 2008); Kennedy v Bue. 51 A.03d 980 [2d Dept 2008); McNal/y v Bava Cab Corp., 45 AD3d &20 [2d Dept 2007]; Davidson v Brisman, 40 AD3d 574 [2d Dept 2007] ; Gicrdano v CSC Holdings, Inc., 29 Al)3d 948 f2d Dept 2006]; &vilaCIJuO v City ofNew York, 2 l AD3d 340 [2d Dept 2005]; Milano v George, 17 A.03d 644 [2d Dept 2004); FirSI UniJJn A1110 Finance, Inc. v Donat. 16 AD3d 372 (2d Dept 2005]). C9nclusion Accordingly, it is -6- -- [* 7]·~-o~---s.n.., . ' ' . • r . . ORDERED, lh•t the motion by Plaintiff JUAN RODRJOUEZ for partial summruy judgment on liability, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212 (a), against defendants FLUSHING TOWN CENTER Ill, L.P. and MUSS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, is denied as untimely. This constitutes lhe Decision and Order of lhe Court. E N T E R t i ~tSCHACK HON.AR J. J. :HON s. c. ARTHUR M. SCHACK J.S.C .7. 1 --

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.