Court Opinion

ID: 9929187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:08:21.788167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:43.968054
License: Public Domain

Walters v Trump Vil. Apts. Two Owner LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30322(U)
                    January 25, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 519739/2018
                Judge: Francois A. Rivera
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: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/26/2024 12:04 PM                                                                              INDEX NO. 519739/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                                                                                                             At an IAS Term, Part 52 of
                                                                                                             the Supreme Court of the·-· _,. ·
                                                                                                             State of New York, held in
                                                                                                             and for the County of Kings,
                                                                                                             at the Courthouse, at Civic
                                                                                                             Center, Brooklyn, New York,
                                                                                                             on the 25th day of January
                                                                                                             2024

               HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA
                ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------X
               E_RNEST WALTERS,

                                                                                 Plaintiff,                       Index No. 519739/2018
                                                     -against-                                                    DECISION & ORDER
               TRUMP VILLAGE APARTMENTS TWO OWNER.LLC
               and APARTMENT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES LLC,

                                                                                 Defendants.
            - •. ---_•.!:·: ~ -. - -.-- --. >'·---- ---   .----------------------------------------------X
             _· • :.Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 [a], of the papers considered on the notice of
            motion filed on February 2; 2023, under motion sequence three, by defendants Trump
            Village Apartments Two Owner LLC and Apartment Management Associates LLC
            (hereinafter the movants) for an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary
            judgement in their favor on the issue of liability and dismissing.the·verified ~omplaint of .. d
            plaintiff Ernest Walters; and (2) pursuant to CPLR § 3126 (2) precluding the plaintiff from
            offering any evidence or testimony adduced from his children and grandchildren .in .... •-. , ... L
            opposition to the instant motion and at the time of trial. The motion is opposed.

            -Notice of motion
            -Statement of material facts
            -Affirmation in support
                   Exhibits A-H
            -Affirmation in opposition
            -Counter statement of material facts
            ~Affirmation in reply

            BACKGROUND

                        On October 1, 2018, plaintiff commenced the iI_1stant action for damages for personal

            injury by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office. On.
                                                                              Page 1 of 4

[* 1]                                                                          1 of 4
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/26/2024 12:04 PM                                               INDEX NO. 519739/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

             November 3, 2018, the defendants joined issue by interposing and filing a joint verified_

             answer. On October 6, 2022, the plaintiff filed a note of issue.

                    Plaintiffs verified complaint and bill of particulars alleges the following salient ~acts.

             On August 10, 2016, plaintiff was caused to slip and fall (hereinafter the subject accident) on

             a slippery condition on the interior staircase ofthe_premises located at 3000 Ocean Parkway,

             County of Kings, State of New York. The premises is owned by defendant, Trump-Village

             Apartments Two Owner LLC, and managed by defendant Apartment Management

             Ass_ociates LLC. The premises is a multiple residential dwelling, and the plaintiff is a

             resident of apartment 9M where he resides with his grandchildren. The defendants were

             negligent in the ownership operation and management of the subject pr·emises by allowing

             the unsafe condition to exist. The defendants' negligence caused the subject accident and the

             plaintiffs physical injuries.

             LAW AND APPLICATION

                    Under Kings County Supreme Court Unifonn Civil Term Rules, part C, rule 6, a party

             is required to make its motion for summary judgment no more than 60 days after the note of

             issue is filed, unless it obtains leave of the court on good cause· shown (Popalardo v. Marino,

             83 AD3d I 029, I 03 0 [2d Dept. 2011]; see Kennedy v. Bae, 51 ADJ d 980, 981 [2d Dept.

             2008]; Gonzalez v. Pearl, 179 AD3d 645[2d Dept 2020]). The Court of Appeals _has stated

             that a showing of good cause for the delay in filing a motion for summary judgment is

             required by CPLR 3212(a). See Brill v. City ofNew York, 2 NY3d 648,652 [2004]; See

             Matter of Gilmore, 131 AD3d 1058 [2d Dept. 2015]).

                                                                                                   Page 2 of 4

[* 2]                                                  2 of 4
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/26/2024 12:04 PM                                              INDEX NO. 519739/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                    Plaintiff filed a note of issue on October 6, 2022, and the defendants made the instant

             motion for summary judgment on February 2, 2023. Defendant's motion for summary

             judgement is denied as untimely. The motion for summary judgement was made more than

             60 days past the filing of the note of issue and the defendants failed to provide good cause

             for the untimely motion pursuant to Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648 (2004]).

                    The defendant also seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 3126 (2) precluding plaintiff

             from offering any evidence and or testimony adduced from his children and grandchildren in

             opposition to the instant motion and at the time of trial. Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may

             issue an order prohibiting a disobedient party ... from producing in evidence ... items of

             testimony or striking out pleadings as a sanction against a party who refuses to obey an order

             for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have

             been disclosed (Castillo v. Charles, 210 A.D.3d 6-'.?5, 626 [2 nd Dept 2022]). Pursuant to 22

             NYCRR 202.7(a), a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation

             that counsel has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to

             resolve the issues raised by the motion. The affirmation shall indicate the time, place and

             nature of the consultation and the issues discussed and any resolutions or shall indicate good

             cause why no such conferral with counsel for opposing parties was held (22 NYCRR

             202. 7[c]). Failure to provide an affirmation of gooq faith which substantively complies with

             22 NYCRR 202.7(c) warrants denial of the motion (Winter v. ESRT Empire State Bldg.,

             LLC, 201 A.D.3d 842, 843-44 [2nd Dept 2022]).

                    The Court need not address that branch of the motion by the defendants to preclude

             evidence and or testimony adduced from the plaintiffs children and grandchildren in

                                                                                                  Page 3 of 4

[* 3]                                                  3 of 4
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/26/2024 12:04 PM                                               INDEX NO. 519739/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

             opposition to the instant motion. The plaintiff has opposed the motion on procedural

             grounds and did not offer any evidence or te~timony adduced from his children or

             grandchildren.

                    The request to preclude this type of evidence at trial is denied because the defendants

             did not submit an' affirmation of their good faith efforts to resolve the disclosure dispute as

             required by 22 NYCRR 202.?(a) and (c). Moreover, the defendants.' submission did no_t_

             demonstrate that the plaintiff or the plaintifr s children or grandchildren willfully or

             contumaciously refused to comply with an order to disclose.

             CONCLUSION

                   · The branch of the motion by defendants Trump Village Apartments Two Owner LLC

             and Apartment Management Associates LLCfor an order pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting

             summary judgement in their favor on liability and dismissing the ·complaint is denied ~s

             untimely.

                    The branch of the motion by defendants Trump Village Apartments Two Owner LLC

             and Apartment Management Associates LLC for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3126 (2)

             precluding plaintiff from offering any evidence and/or testimony adduced from his children

             and grandchildren in opposition to the instant motion and at the time of trial is denied.

                    The foregoing constitute_s the decision and order of this Court.

            ENTER:

                                                                        J.S.C.

                                                                                                   Page 4 of 4

[* 4]                                                   4 of 4