Citimortgage, Inc. v Belz

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Citimortgage, Inc. v Belz 2018 NY Slip Op 30269(U) February 6, 2018 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 02284/2014 Judge: Robert F. Quinlan 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. [* 1] INDEX No. 02284/2014 SHORT FORM ORDcll SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK l.A.S. PART 27 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT F. QUINLAN Justice of the Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------X CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff, - againstAMY J. BELZ, A/KlA AMY BELZ, A/KlA AMY J. VERYZER; AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK, N.A.; " JOHN DOES" AND "JANE DOES", SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS, PARTIES INTENDED BEING POSSIBLE TENANTS OR OCCUPANTS OF MOTION DATE: 04/ 14/2016 SUBMIT DATE: 11/04/2016 Mot. Seq.:# 001 - Mot D LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 80 Business Park Drive, Suite I I 0 Armonk, NY 10504 David L. Singer, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Amy J. Belz aka Amy Belz aka Amy J. Veryzer 150 Broadbollow Road, Suite 122 Melville, NY 1174 American Express Centurion Bank 1108 East South Union Avenue Midvale, UT 84047 PREMISES AND CORPORATIONS, OTHER ENTITIES OR PERSON WHO HAVE, CLAIM, OR MAY CLAIM, A LIEN AGAINST, OR OTHER INTEREST IN, THE PREMISES, Defendant(s ). BLANK ROME LLP Attorney for Defendant Bank ofAmerica, NA. successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, NA. 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 ----------------------------------------------------------------X General Surgery Associates, LLC 226 Bell Meade Rd, #C EastSetauket, NY 11733 Orthopedic Associates of Long Island, LLP 6 Technology Dr., Suite l 00 East Setaukety, NY 11733 Occupants 82 Upton Drive Sound Beach, NY 11789 Upon the following papers numbered l to 26 on this motion for ~ order granting summary judgment. consolidation, and order ofreference; Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers ..l:.11..: t~otiee ofCtoss Motion and snpporting papers_ , Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 18-21 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 22-26 ; Other , it is ORDERED that this motion by plaintiff for an order granting summary judgment against the answering defendants Amy J. Belz and Bank of America, to strike their answers, and for an order consolidating this action with [* 2] Citimortgage v Hclz Index No. 02284/2014 Page2 the act ion ( 'i1i111orlgage. Inc. aguim·J G1!11<!ral Surge1J' Associul<!S, l./,( ': < )rthopedic Associates <4LI LLP. Index No. 61001 7/2015. and for an order of rc(crenec appointing a reforce to compute pursuant to RPJ\PL § 1321. and amending the caption by removing the ··ooe'· dcfondants is granted to the extent that plaintiff is granted partial summary judgment as to defondant Amy J. Belz. a/k/a Amy Belz a/k/a Amy J. Vcryz.cr dismissing ht.:r First through Third. and Filth through Eighth J\llinnative Dcfonscs: and it is further ORDERED that upon the proof submitted plaintifrs application to dismiss defendant' s fourth affinnativc defonsc alleging plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice requirement of RP /\Pl. § 1304 is di.:nied as is plainti tr s application to dismiss defcndant" s answer: and it is further ORDERED that that pa11 of plaintiff s motion seeking summary judgment as against defendant Bank of America. N.A. Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A. is granted: and it is further ORDERED that pla intif'r $ motion to consolidate this action with the action ( 'i1i111ortguge. l11c. uxai11st Ue11eral Surge1:1 A ssocial<!S. U .C: Orthopedic: Associates <d' /,J /,J,f>. Index No. 6 10017/2015 is granted: ' ORDERED that portion or plaintiffs motion seeking. to amend the caption to dis<:.ontinuc as to defendants ·•John Doc·· and "Jani.! Ooc·· is grantt:d and the caption shall now appear as foll ows: -------------------------------------------------------------------X CIT IMORT<i!\<il·:. INC.. Plaintiff, - aga inst AMY .I . BELZ. A/K/J\ /\MY BELZ. A/K//\ AMY J. VFRY/.ER: /\MERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION RANK: BANK OF AMl ~ RICJ\ . N.J\. Sl JCCFSSOR RY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK. N.J\.: GEN LRAI. Sl IRCiERY ASSOCIATES. U .C ORT I IOPEDIC ASSOCIATES OF I.I. LLP Dcl'cndant(s). -------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------------x :and it is fu11her ORDERED that plaintiff is to serve a copy of this order upon the calendar clerk of this part within thirty (30) days of this order. and all further proceedings arc to be under the amended caption: and it is fu11hcr ORDERED that in ull other respects. plaintiffs motion is den ied; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff s application to appoint a referee pursuant to RPJ\l'L§ 1321 is denii.:d and its proposed order su bmitted with this motion is marked "Not Signed··: and it is fu rther ORDERED that pursuant to CPl.R :1'2 12 (g) and ~22 18. the actinn is set for trial limited to proof or compliance with mailing of the notice pursuant to RPAI .P ~ 1304. dctl:-ndant' s fou1ih affirmativc.:> defcnsl': and it is further [* 3] Cilimorlgagc v Belz Index No. 02284/201-' l'agc 3 ORDERED that plaintiff is to tile a note of issue within 90 days of the dak of this order and is to attach a copy of thi!> order to the note of issue: and it is further ORDERED that upon filing the note or i!.suc the court\\ ill entertain renewe<l summar) judgment motions from th<.: parties. but in no case will such a motion be cntc:rtained more than 60 days alter the filing.of the note of issue: and it is fu11her ORDERED that the action is scheduled ror a certification conference on Ma) 8. 2018 at 9:30 /\M in Part 27 unless a successive summar) judgment motion authori1.ed by this rnder has been filed before the scheduled conforem:c. 'l'his is an act i1rn to foreclose a mortgage on residential real proper!) k11own as 82 l Jpton Strc.:ct. Sound Beach. Su rfolk Count). New York gi\\:n b) dcrendant /\m) J. Bcl:r a/IJa A IH) Bek a/k/a /\my J. VCl)/.cr ("dcfomlant.. ) to G. & M. Wolkcnberg.. Inc .. to secure a note given by dcfcndant on the same date. l lpon defendant's default in payment under the t<.:rrns or the mortgage and now. plaintiff C itimortgag.e. Inc. ("plainti tr·) commenced th is act ion on January 31. 2014 by filing a summons. complaint and notice of pendl.!ncy with the Suffolk Count~ Cieri... Defendant interposed an answer dated Y1arch I0. ::!O 14 consisting or g~nc1 <11 denials and l.!ight aflinnati' e defenses including plaintiffs lad-. orstanding to commence the action (Second and Third/\ flirmative Dcfenses)and plaintiffs failure to comply "ith the notice pro\' is ion of RP /\PL § 1304 (Fourth Affirmative Defense). Defendant Bank of America, N ./\. successor by mt.:rger tn I.a Salle Bank. N./\.( .. Bank of America··) interposed an ans"' 1.:r dated h:hruar) 25. 201 11 consisting. or cc11ain admissions and lacking information to confirm or deny the remaining all<.:gations in the complaint. /\ foreclosure settlement confcrcm:e pursuant to CPI.I{ 3408 ''as hdd on 'ovcmbl..'r 25. 2014. dc..:li:ndant defaulted in appearing. and the matt!.!r \\Cb mark1.:d not settled and released to thc.: l/\S Part. Plaintiff nm' moves for an order granting summ<tr) j udgment against ddcndant. '>triking. her ari:-.\\er and affirmative <lcli:nscs. for summal") judgment ngainst Bank of America and stril,.ing their an~\\ er. consolidating this act ion with the act ion ( ·;1i11111rlgagl'. Inc. agaiml ( i1111era/ 5;urge1:1•Associale.\. l.U ': Ori lic>/Jetlic Associates id'/./ U .J>. lndt.:x No. 610017/20 15. amending the caption. fixing the default as against the non-appearingdefrndants. and for an nrdcr of rcfcrencc.: appninling a rdcrec to cornputc pursuant to RP APL§ 1321. The subm ission:-. in support or its motion include ii.; attornc) ·s affirmations. the anidavit of merit of Lindsay I lodges. cmplo) ed as Vice Pre-;idcnt Document ( \mtrol of plaintifT. the note. mortgage. as~ignmcnt. merger agreement bet'" et.:n plaintiff and /\B AMRO Mortgage< iroup. Inc .. the 11/\M P ag.r!.!cment. pleadings. and th1.: affidavit:. of service or process. Defendant opposes the motion by artidav it in which she rcfCrs lo an allcg.cd rcpaymt.:nt agrcenH.:nt with plaintiff in 2011 pursuant to which sht.: made ce11a in repayments. and to a re instatement plan which plain Ii ff offered hut de fondant cou Id not afford due to injuries :-.he sustained in 20 I I and her husband· s failure to pay child support. Plaintiff -;ubmits the al1irmatio11 of counsel in repl) .. o other party appears in opposition to the mot ion. CONSOLIDATION As an initial matter the Court will address plaintiff · motion to consolidate. Plaintiff seeks to consolidate the present case,., ith the action ( 'itimortgage, Inc. agai11st ( ie11eral Surg11Jy Associates. /./.( ·: ( >rllwpedic ..ts.rnciale., <~/ f.J I.I.I'. Index o. 610017/20 I 5 which was commenced by plaintiff on S!.!ptcmhcr 2 1. 2015 to name additional dcfondants holding judgments against defondant. Where common questions of la'' or fact exist. a motion to consolidate or liJr a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602(a) shou ld he granted absent a ~h(m ing of prejudice to a suhsrnn1i:1l right h~ the part~ oppo:-ing. the motion.. (see l'eri11i ( 'orp. 1· lfDF. /11c .. 33 AIHd 60~ l'.!d D~pt '.!0061). [* 4] Citimortgagt• v Bdz Index No. 02284/2014 Page 4 rl1e interests ofj ust ice and j ud ieia Ieconomy arl! better served by con sol idat ion in those c<1ses where the act ions sharu material questions of law or fact (see //a11m-er Ins. Grp. 1• Mezansky. I05 A D3d I000 I2d Dept 20131). I lcre. both act ions involve common questions of law and fact and consolidation wi II avoid unrn.:ccssary duplication of' proceedings. save unnecessary costs and expenses and prevent the in.iusticc which would result from divergent decisions based on the same tacts (see Mas-Edwcml.~ 1· U/Jimute Sens .. Inc.• 45 /\D3d 540. 540 12d Dept 2007 !). Moreover. defendant has failed to show a substantial right wi II be prejudiced by con~ol idat ion and Bank or t\merka does not oppose the motion. Consolidation is granted. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Entitlement to summary .i udg.1ncnt in lavor of' a foreclosing plaioti fT is established. prima facie, by plainti rt\ production of the mortgage. the unpaid note. nnd evidence of default in payment (see lf'<'lls Fargo /Jc111k. N.tl . 1'. OeSou=a. 126 t\D3d 965 I2d Dept 20 IS I: Wells Furgo. NA 1• l:'roboho. 127 AD3d I I76 I2d Dept 2015 I: Ire/ls Fargo /Jank. NA 1· :\tforgc111. 139 /\D3d I046 I2d Dept 2016 J). II' established b) prool'!>uhmitted in evidcntiar) form. plaintiff ha~ demonstrated its cnt it lemcnl to sumnutr) judgment (('Pl .R 1212: RPA P l.~ 1.121: .\ee Fecleral I tome I.cum Mt}!.<'. Cm11. 1· l\e1rastatlti.,. 23 7 I\ D2d 558 !2d Dept 19971). 1'11e burden then shi !'ts to defendant to demon'>trate the existence of a triable is-;ue of' fact as 10 a bona tide defonse (see< 'apstone /fa-;. ( 'redit. l.U. 1· lmperia Fami~r Realty. LU ', 70 t\ D3d 882 I2d Dept 20 I0 I. .%w!fi11i d ·1u111dler. 79 AD3d 103 I I2d Dept 20 I0 I: Citiha11k. NA 1· Vu11 Brunt l'ruperties. U "( ·. Q5 I\ l)}d I I S8 I2d Dept 20121 ). De fondant must then produce evidential) proof in admissible form sufficient tn demonstrate the existence of a triable is!>ue of fact (see Washin}!to11 M11t. /Jank 1· I'<1/e11cia. 92 I\ IHd 77 1 I2d Dept 20121; Wilwgracl 1· New )'ork l l11i1-. Mee/. ('tr .. 64 NY2d 851 11985 J). Del~ndant · s answer and anirmal ivc defenses alone are insufficient lo defeat plaintiff's motion (see, Flugstar /Jank 1· /Jellq/iore. 94 AD3d I044 I2d Dept 20121 ). In dccid ing. the mot ion the court is to determine whether there are bona fide issues or fact and 1wt to de Ive intn or resolve issues of crcdihil ity (see Vegar Re.mmi ( ·orp.. 18 NY3d 499 120121 ). 1 Where plaintiff'~ l>tunding ha!> been placed in il>'>llC b) dcli..:ndanl\ ans,, er. plaintiff abo must C'>tahlbh it~ '>landing as part ol' it ~ prima focie sho\\ ing (see Aurora l.ocm .\'ens.. LL(·'" Taylor. ~5 NYJd 355[20151: l.oc111care 1•. Firshi11g. 130 t\DJd 787 Pd Dept 20151: I/SH(' Hll11k USA. NA."' Baptiste, 1~8 /\()3d 77 l~d Dept 20151: ( 'S Bunk.. NA 1· Riclillrd. 15 I A()Jd I 00 I I2cl Dept 20171: Citimortgage I' Rockc'.fi.>ller. I 55 I\ D3d 998 12d 201 7 I: (IS Ha11k. N. A. 1• Col11m. I56 /\D3d 844 l2d Dept 20 I71). Plaintiff estahlishcs its standing by demonstrating that. when the act ion was commenced. it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note (see A 11rora L<Hlll Sen•s .. /./.( · 1· 'l 'c~vlor, supra: Wells l·ill'gc> /Ja11k. NA 1• Roo11ey. 132 t\D3d 980 I2d Depl 20 I 5 J). A written al>sig.nment or phys ical deli very prior tot he com111encc111ent o f'the action is sufficient to transfer the ohl igat ion. and the mortgage 1n1sl>c~ v. ith the debt as an inseparable incident thereto (see U.S. Ba11k. .VA 1· ( 'o/~1'11101-e. 68 I\ D3d 752 I2d Dept 2009 I: /Jcmk c~( /\'. r. Mello11 1· ( ;ll/11s. 116 /\D3d 723 I2d Dept 20141 ). In addition. wher~ defendant has propcrly asserted no11complia11cc with the not i1.:e requirements of RP/\PL § 130..t a~ a defense. or rail>cd it in opposition to plaintiff., motion. or \\hen rlaintiffhas pied it in the complaint and defendant has denied thc allegation. plaintiff must adduce due proof that the pre-act ion foreclosure 90 <la) not ice requi rements have heen satisfied (see J> 1111 Mtge. ( ""1'· 1 -. ( 'eh•stin. 130 t\ D3d 703 I2d Dept 2015 I: ( 'enlur ,. Weis=. I 36 t\ D3 d 85 5 I2d Dept 20161: .%amhi I'. Mornlieclia11. IJ <> t\ l)Jd 895 12d Dcpt 20161: ./Pf\/orga11 <'lws11 Bank v. A.' well. 142 t\ D3 536 !2d Dept 20 I6 I: A 11mm /.<){Ill Sn·.,·. /./,( · v /Jurit=. 144 t\ ()J d 6 18 I2d Dept 2016 I: U.S. fJu11k. N. A. 1• .~'ingh. I 4 7 A D3 d I007 I2d Dept 20 I 71 ). PLAJNTIFJ<~ ESTABLISHF:S STANDING Plainti ff has standing ir it establishes that it \\as the holder of the note at the time the act ion wa..; commenced (.\t'e H111ig1w11 Bank 1· l.ari==u. 129 A D3d 904 Pd Dept 2015 I: At& T /Ja11k i· ( '/[ffside Pro/'· .\lxt.. I./.( ·. 117 I\ I)Jd 876 !2d Dept 2016 ]). Plaintiff has demonstrated its standing as hc,ldcr of the note b~ estahli!>hing that it had he1.:n assigned to it prior to the commencement of the action by attaching a copy oft he indorscd note. to the complaint at the time thl! a<.:tion was commenced (see Natiomtar /lfortg .. /,/,(' 1· ( 'ati=mw. 127 t\DJd 115 I 12d Dept 20151: [* 5] Citimortgagc v Hcl1. Index No. Page 5 022!W201~ .ll'Morga11 Clw.\c l/e111k. NA 1• Weinher}!.<'I'. 142 /\ D3d 643 l2d Dept '.W 16 ]: l>eutsdu: /Ja11k /\'C11io11al frust Co. v. LoJ.!ml. 146 J\ D3d 861 I2d Dept 20 I 71: l!S Ba11k. NA 11 Sahl<?[!: 153 /\ l)Jd 8 79 Pd Dept 20 I 71: Wells Furg,o /Jank. NA ,. Soskil. 155 /\D3d 923 I2d Dept 20 I 7 ]: Ra11k <d'NY Me/1011 1· Burke. I 55 /\D3d 932 pd Dept 201 71). J>lainti ff has estahlished it s standing.. defendant's second and third aflinnative defonses arc dismissed. MAILING OF TUE RPAJ>L §1304 NOTICES NOT ESTABLISHF.O * or Due prool' of the mailing. of the RP/\PI. 1304 notice is established b) submi:-.sion an affidavit of ser ice (.\c•e.IP/llorxan C'lime Bank. .A. 1·.~'c/1011. 130 J\D3d 87512d Dept 20151: Wells Fargu 1· Mo=a. 129 J\D3d 946 Pd Dept 20151) nr through busirn::ss rc1.:ords that describe its office practice and procedure for mai Iing. (see New )'ork& l'reshyr. l/osp. 1• Al/slate Ins. Co. (29 AD3d 547 l2d Dept 20061: Citihu11k. NA. r Wood. 150 J\D3d 813 l'.!d Dept 20171: <'iri111orrgaj.!e Inc. 1· /Ja11ks. I55 J\D3d 936 I 2d Dept 2017 I). l lnsubstantiatcd and wndusory statements in the aflidavit or plainti rr s rcprcsentativ...:. along with dated copies of the notiCl or default. are insufficient to prove that the notice:-. required oy RPJ\PI. § 1304 were properly mailed (see HS/JC Mt}!e. Coi]J. 1· <ierher. I 00 /\D3d 966 l:?.d Dept '.!O 121: <'itimortguJ!e. Inc. 1· 1:·spi11al. 134 J\D3d 876 I 2d Dept 2015 J: Ce11/ar. n·;JJ 1· Weis=. 136 /\D3d 855 pd Dept 20161: U..\·. Bunk. NA. v Corey. 137 J\D3d 894 I2d Dept 20161: llS /Junk. NA v Suh/rd/. 153 Ad3d 879 I2d Dept 20171). I kre. although the affidavit of plaintiffs Vice President - Document Control cs ta bl ishcs his ahil it,v to 1csti I~ to plaintiffs bu-.iness records pursuant to C PLR 45 18. the affiant taib tn establish mai lin!!- of the notices. The alfomt merely states a review of the records establishes the notices \\ere :-.cnt to defendant on a certain date .. h) registered or certified mail and by first class mail." These srntcments arc unsubstantiated. corn.:lusory and insuf'ticicnt to establish the mai Iing. n!quircd by RP APL~ 1304 (.\'l!I! .Jl'1\for~aJ1 CIJU.\'e Ba11k. N.A. r Kutc·li. 142 ADJd 536 I2d Depl 2016 l: Ce11/ar FS/J 1· Censor. 13'> /\ DJd 78 I I 2d Dc.:pt 2016 j). Tht.: a f'fiant must sho"' a fom iI iarity "" ith office practices and pro1.:c<lures in order to establish pniol' or a standard offit:c practice and procedure:-. to cns11n.: proper addrcs:-.i ng. and ma iI ing (see ('it i J\lunguge. Inc 1· l'uppm. I-+ 7 A D3d 900 I2d Dept 20171: ( 'it ihu11k. N. A. 1• 11 '"'u/. 150 J\D3d 81 3 I 2d Dept 20171: 11 ·el/.\ Fargo /Junk. .V.I 1· Trupia. 150 J\D3d I 049 I 2d Dept 20171: i111·esto1'.\ Se11·i11,{!.\ Bunk 1• Sala s. 152 /\D3d 752 l2d Dept 201 71). While the anidavit may ha'c: been sufficient\\) establ i"h mail ing of the not ices pursuant w the Second Department ·s dec.:ision in I ISJJ< ·Bunk l /SA. Nat. Ass·,, v ( >:rnn. 154 J\I >3d 822 I 2d Dept 20171 wh id1appearl!d to dcviatc from prior hold in gs. the cnurt · s holdings in rc1.:e11t cases ( vee /Ju11k o/New fork Mellon 1· /.mvl1111m·. J\D3d . 2018 Slip Op 00271 [2d Dept January 17. 2018 l;US /Jank 1• //e111:1'- __/\ f)Jd , 201 8 Slip Op 00326 I2d Dept January 17. 20 I 81: .l/'1 \lorgan Morlg"ge Acqui.\ifion ( 'orp. r l\ugu11. J\D3d . 2017 Slip Op 00416 I:?.cl Dept JanuaT) 24. 2018 J) appear to re-affirm the holdings of the Second Department prior to HS/JC Bank l i.\A. Nat. Ass ·u r O:cw1 ..rnpm and the standard of proof of mai Iing required. /\ppl) ing thi:-. standard plaint itrs affiant fails to c-.tab lish mai Iing. of the not ices pursuant to RPJ\ Pl.* 130·1 n:quiring denial off'ul I sumrmtr) j udgmcnt. /\s to dclcndanrs remaining affirmative clefr:nsl!s. the foilun.: to raise and support pleaded anirmativc delCnses in oppo ... ition lo a motion for summary judgmt.:nt render.., them abandoned and subject to dismissal (sec Kue/me & Nogel l11c. 1· /Juitle11. 36 NY2d 539119 751: f..:ronick 1• LP. Therault Co .. l11c .. 70 /\D3d 6-l812d Dept 20101: Neu · fork ( 'ommerciul /Junk r . .J. Realty F. Rockmt'll_I'. 1.ttl.. 108 J\D3d 7S6 l2d lkpt 2013 I: Stork111u111·. <'iz1· <d'l.m1g lkacli. I 06 /\D3d I 076 l'.!d Dept 20131: /\at:, , .\lill<'r. 120 /\D3d 768 pd Di..!pt 201-l I). S UCCESSIVE SllMMARY .JtiDGMENT MOTIONS ALLOWED /\It hough multiple summaT) judgment motillns are dbcourag~d \\ ithout a '\ho" in!! of nc\\ I~ discovered e\ idencc or other :-.ufficicnt cau:-.\!. a court ma) proper!) entertain a "ubsequent summai; judgment mot ion "h..:n it is s11bstanti\ el) \Ct lid and "hen granting the mot ion "ill further the e1H.b ofj ustice v. hi It.: cl iminating an unnecessary burden 011 coun re:-.ourccs (see Ol!tko 1· MclJ011ultl ·s R<".,ta11ra11ts o/i\'c•11· ) 'urk. l11c. 198 /\d'.!d 208 I:?.d Ikpt I 993 1: [* 6] Citimortgagc v Belz Index No. 02284/2014 Page 6 Vu/ley Nat imwl Bank r 1N l / loldi11K, ll< '. 9 5 A D3d I I 08 I2d Dept 2012 J: Kole/ /Jamsek HIie::er. Inc. 1· Sc:hlesinxer. 139 A D3d 810 I2d Dept 2016_1). It is clearly appropriate to consider a scconu summary judgment motion where tht: court has already granted a party partial summary judgment and limited t!hc issues to a fow , or where such a motion would correct a simple defect. eliminating the hurdcn on judicial resources which would otherwise require a trial (see Ros<! 1• / lor/011 Med ('tr .• 29 AD3d 977 I2<l Dept 2006 I: /,mu/mark Capital /11w.>slme111s. file. P Li-Slum Wang, 94 AD3d 418 [I '' Dept 2012 j). The denial of a subsequent summary judgment motion which could he dispositive for the sole re<1son of the prohibition against second summary judgment motions has been held to be an improvident exercise of the court· s discretion (see /Jurhige v Siben & Ferher, 152 J\D3d 641 ! 2d Dept 20 I 71 ). Plaintifrs proposed order is marked '·not signed:· If' plaintiff fails to timely file a successive motion, as there is no need for discovery on this issue. a compliancc/<.:ertifiL'ation conference is set for May 8. 2018 at 9:30 AM in Part 27. at which time the parties will execute a compliance conference order. setting the timing for filing of a note of issue and a pre-trial conforcncc setting the action for tria I. No further mot ions wil I he entertained without permission of the court. This constitutes the Order and decision of the Court. ~-r--?~ Dated: February 6. 2018 Hon Rohcrt F. Quinlan. J.S.C. FIN,\I. J>ISPOSITIO:" _ L NON-FINAi . l>ISl'O~l'I 10!'<

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.