Romer v City of Ne York 21 NY Slip Op 33981(U) August 17, 21 Supreme Court, Ne York County Docket Number: 19911/6 Judge: Kar S. Smith Cases posted ith a "3" idtifier, i.e., 213 NY Slip Op 31(U), are republished from various state and local governmt ebsites. These include the Ne 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] 1.. - z (..) _ <... a::: c:> :::> z -, - o~ t-q o...j...j a::: a::: u. WW ::: a:::...ju. >-...J :::> u.... (..) a. a::: < (..) -z t= :ii: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK- NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: KAREN S. SMITH PART 62 Justice CYRILLE ROMER, u. :r: Wt- -v- Plaintiff, CITY OF NEW YORK, 1511 THIRD AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC, VIACOM OUTDOOR, INC., SHELTER EXPRESS, CORP., and SHELTER EXPRESS, INC., Defdants. INDEX NO. 19911l6 MOTION DATE 7/8/1 MTION SEQ. NO. 2 AUG 2 ('\ 2l l The folloing papers, numbered 1 tojl ere read on this motion amfcress;.motiott(bn!suromary judgmt - - PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion - Affidavits - Exhibits 1 Ansering Affidavits - Exhibits--------------- 2 3 RepJy 4 Notice of Cross-Motion - Affidavits - Exhibits 5 Ansering Affidavits - Exhibits--------------- 6 7 Reply---------------------..,..--- Cross-Motion: ~Yes D No 1 ;o_8 Upon the foregoing papers, it is ORDERED that this motion by defdant CBS Outdoor, Inc. f/k/a Viacom Outdoor, Inc., for summary judgmt dismissing plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims as against it pursuant to CPLR 3212, and the cross-motion by defdant City of Ne York for summary judgmt dismissing plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against It pursuant to CPLR 3212, are both died for the reasons discussed belo. Plaintiff commced this action to recover for injuries she alleges she suffered on October 18, 25, h she as caused to trip and fall by a defect in the sidealk near the northeast corner of East 85 1 h Street and Third Avue, Ne York, Ne York. Defdant CBS Outdoor, Inc. f/k/a Viacom Outdoor, Inc. (hereinafter "Viacom") no moves for summary judgmt dismissing plaintiff's complaint and all crossclaims as against it, contding that it bears no responsibility for the defect plaintiff alleges caused her accidt. Defdant City of Ne York (hereinafter "City") cross-moves for summary judgmt also contding it cannot be held liable for plaintiffs accidt, but on differt grounds. The propont of a motion for summary judgmt must make a prima facie shoing of titlemt to judgmt as a matter of la, tdering sufficit evidce in an admissible form to demonstrate the absce of any material issues of fact. (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 32 [1987]). Once the movant has made such a shoing, the burd th shifts to the opposing party to produce evidce In admissible form sufficit to establish the existce of any material issues of fact requiring a trial of the action. (Zuckerman v City of Ne York, 49 NY2d 557 (198]). Hoever, here the moving party fails to make a prima facie shoing, the motion must be died regardless of the sufficicy of the opposing party's papers. (See Winegrad v Ne York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 (1985]). Page 1 of 4
[* 2] t '..;. A,e;ordlh,Q;'~o:vt~~9~ '-~t~nt.~~d:f6!9:~ji:a_~cl\!fe~lrt. mt.n~~jtt;,~h~ i~.t9 in~.@]{~.pjal"-~lrt~n~:. ''nt-?v -}~u~ :sji~l~!.gi.~t~:t9l!a.h~q~fh~1flyjf,~~9,qplj~. < ~ 'llrij-.u~cq'ntr@~t~(i (fi~:w,pr'< tpltim~:~e.:1~qti.'i", -_ ii.ht~tefj'{9'.'i;o~~f~-~~aiit~.~felt r.. ~P.rt ~ :.lp.t. (fijtfit.t. r'~shl!t'i'.i~~p~~-''~> RemPx'1k9~ :~~~-tt~lf~rl?~ftsu.~pj~~o t11e:t@n:~(l1~;..-~~~meift~":~!~g~ll:«k1n.a:~~rqm: ij"e~~lp:m~~-:~u.re1~~~~ttt'f:i@~iw.a'r~'1no ' re~-~git~~ly ~~fe c;_c>~~mi:1.n\~ftel'. l)te 1 ~b~jfqt:~~j~o,qi'!if. ~~~~-~$1~~treJ'.@~_9'tf!~,9f ~ll~jj~~~~rj~~~n.d ~~ij~#pjuttt.y'.vl~f~pm~s, *Un; - :.an.d: a,c~fy ~1tn~~s;]t~a,py~J:tt~~,!~1t!~:f!' 1 ij:act~ b!,~9'~,:~h,(ty,:1fi fhl::1uc.(t19~' ot.... elimnjffj!j@5c1(tli),vfi~~l~)~ temo\t'-~:;by:'$jlelt'r~~~rff'u>ij;,t_t\~~jt~~tl'ort~ofth,cf Clfyfti1D)pij_ttmtf(f::qf... lltan_.llgrt.at.on on'apru5~ 23~.tiJqre'th l\il,vlo;y@~~,pr:iqi:'tq;p_l~li(uff.s'ac~id~ :. :.
[* 3],, -,, I I - - -. ~.:.
[* 4] motion (CPLR 3212 [b]; see Connors, CPLR 3212 [a]'s Timing Requiremt for Summary Judgmt Motions, 71 Brook L Rev 1529, 1541-1542 [Summer 26))" (id.). Thus, courts have considered untimely summary judgmt motions that rely on the same legal theories and the same evidce advanced in the motion-in-chief, because ev ithout the cross-motion, the court ould have the authority to search the record and, here appropriate, grant the cross-moving party summary judgmt notithstanding the latess of the motion. Such is not the case here, here the City is moving based on evidce not submitted ith Viacom's papers and la not ev applicable to Viacom, such as Ne York City Administrative Code 7-21(c), and alternatively seeks summary judgmt on its claim for indemnification, an issue not raised anyhere in Viacom's motion. Accordingly, the City's cross-motion must be died as untimely. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this motion by defdant CBS Outdoor, Inc. f/k/a Viacom Outdoor, Inc., for summary judgmt pursuant to CPLR 3212, is died; it Is further ORDEREID that this cross,.motion by defdant City of Ne V.ork for summary judgmt pursuant to CPLR 3212, is died; it Is further ORDERED that the parties appear for Mediation before J.H.O. Leibovitz on October 21, 21 at 11 : a.m., as previously scheduled. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: --'A"""u=g:i.:u=s::..:.t...:1..:...7,_,, 2:..::::...:1...::; Hon. Kar S. Smith, J.S.C. Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION (!] NON-FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: DO NOT POST Page 4 of 4