Court Opinion

ID: 9965027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 15:10:20.366907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:55.068529
License: Public Domain

Karamalis v Leonard St. Props. Group, Ltd.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31486(U)
                     April 25, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156202/2021
                 Judge: Eric Schumacher
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.
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 156202/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

                                SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                          NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:          HON. ERIC SCHUMACHER                                     PART                                  23M
                                                                         Justice
            -------------------X                                                       INDEX NO.               156202/2021
                ATHINA KARAMALIS,
                                                                                       MOTION DATE              04/25/2024
                                                   Plaintiff,
                                                                                       MOTION SEQ. NO.              001
                                           - V -

                LEONARD STREET PROPERTIES GROUP, LTD. et ano.,                       AMENDED DECISION + ORDER
                                                                                           ON MOTION
                                                   Defendants.

            -------------------X
            NYSCEF doc nos. 13-29 were read on this motion for summary judgment.

            Motion by defendants pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment denied as untimely 1•

                                                                BACKGROUND
                     Plaintiff commenced this action on June 30, 2021, by filing the summons and complaint
            (see NYSCEF doc no. 1). On August 19, 2022, the prior court held a preliminary conference and
            at that conference set forth that "[a]ny dispositive motion(s) shall be made on or before 120 days
            after filing of [note of issue]" (NYSCEF doc no. 10 at 2).

                     As is relevant here, court administration reassigned the case to this court in early 2023.
            On February 6, 2023, plaintiff filed the note of issue (see NYSCEF doc no. 11 ). The
            reassignment is evidenced by, among other things, the NYSCEF Confirmation Notice for this
            filing (see Confirmation Notice, available at
            https://iapps.courts.state.ny. us/nyscef/ConfirmationNotice?docid=kdz6RRzfaS8MOTiT31 iTag=
            =, last accessed April 25, 2024, at 10:54 a.m.). The Notice is dated February 6, 2023, at 3:26
            p.m., and states: "Assigned Judge: Eric Schumacher" in bold, center-justified type directly below
            the index number and case caption provided at the top of the page (id.). The Notice further states
            that an email notification regarding the filing was sent to both "Gregory J. Dell", at
            "greg.dell@wilsonelser.com", and "Jeffrey Liu", at "jeffrey.liu@wilsonelser.com", attorneys for
            defendants, with the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, also on
            February 6, 2023, at 3:26 p.m. (id.).

                     This court's part rules were online as of February 9, 2023, specifying that "[a]ll summary
            judgment motions must be filed within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue" (Part 23 R.
            III[G]).

            1
              This order vacates, amends, and supersedes the order that was previously issued by the court on April 15, 2024
            (see NYSCEF doc no. 31 ).

                166202/2021 KARAMALIS v LEONARD ST. PROPS. GROUP, LTD. et ano.                                  Page 1 of4
                Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                             1 of 4
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 156202/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

                   On March 17, 2023, this court issued a "Discovery Conference Notice -From Court"
           further informing the parties of the reassignment. As is relevant here, the discovery notice states:
           "[t]he court directs that parties familiarize themselves with the rules. The court advises that all
           parties are deemed on notice of the rules and are directed to abide by them" (NYSCEF doc no.
           12). A hyperlink to this court's part rules appears in the notice.

                   On June 6, 2023, defendants filed this motion for summary judgment (see NYSCEF doc
           no. 13). No party addresses the timeliness of the motion.

                                                      DISCUSSION

                    CPLR 3212(a) requires that motions for summary judgment be filed by a date set by the
           court, unless none is set, "except with leave on good cause shown." "'[G]ood cause' in CPLR
           3212(a) requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion-a satisfactory
           explanation for the untimeliness-rather than simply permitting meritorious, nonprejudicial
           filings, however tardy" (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648,652 [2004]; see also Jarama v
           Liberty Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 161 AD3d 691,692 [1st Dept 2018] [applying the rule to
           cross motions]). A movant' s "failure to appreciate that its motion was due ... is no more
           satisfactory than a perfunctory claim of law office failure" (Giudice v Green 292 Madison, LLC,
           50 AD3d 506, 506 [1st Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "No excuse at all, or a
           perfunctory excuse, cannot be 'good cause"' (Baram v Person, 205 AD3d 470,471 [1st Dept
           2022], citing Brill at 652; see also Rahman v Domber, 45 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2007]).

                  Here, the deadline set by this court in its part rules for the filing of all summary judgment
           motions was 60 days from the filing of the note of issue. The note of issue was filed on February
           6, 2023. 60 days from the filing of the note of issue was April 7, 2023. The motion for summary
           judgment was filed on June 6, 2023, 120 days after the filing of the note of issue. As such, the
           motion is untimely.

                   Moreover, defendants have not shown good cause for their untimeliness. The Appellate
           Division, First Department has held that good cause is not found where movants fail to file their
           summary judgment motions by the deadline set forth in a rule or order of the assigned judge
           before whom the motion is pending (see Appleyard v Tigges, 171 AD3d 534, 536 [1st Dept
           2019]). In Appleyard, the prior judge's part rules gave the parties 120 days from the filing of the
           note of issue to file any dispositive motions. The note of issue was filed on December 16, 2016,
           while the case was still assigned to that prior judge. On December 31, 2016, that judge retired,
           and the case was administratively reassigned to a new judge on January 7, 2017. That new
           judge's part rules required dispositive motions be filed no later than 60 days from the filing of
           the note of issue, or February 14, 2017. The defendants filed their motions for summary
           judgment on March 29, 2017, 103 days after the filing of the note of issue. The trial court denied
           the motions as untimely, and the Appleyard Court affirmed, holding that "[d]efendants' failure to
           inform themselves of the identity of the new judge and her part rules does not constitute good
           cause for failing to adhere to them" (at 536).

                  The procedural history of Appleyard as to its discovery conferencing is something of an
           anachronism today. In the underlying case, originally commenced in 2014, neither the

            156202/2021 KARAMALIS v LEONARD ST. PROPS. GROUP, LTD. etano.                        Page 2 of4
            Motion No. 001

[* 2]                                                     2 of 4
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 156202/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

           preliminary conference order nor any of the subsequent discovery conference stipulations set
           forth any written order or directive concerning the timing of summary judgment motions (index
           no. 24491/20l4E, NYSCEF doc nos. 26-31). At present,the standard court discovery conference
           forms all have pre-typed verbiage concerning the timing of summary judgment motions, with a
           blank for the assigned judge to fill a number (e.g., 60) from after the filing of the note of issue.

                   The broad language of the holding in Appleyard was circumscribed in Lopez v
           Metropolitan Transit Authority (191 AD3d 508 [1st Dept 2021 ]). In the underlying decision and
           order, the motion court stated,

                  "Defendants argue that they were confused about the summary judgment deadline
                  because the prior judge's rules and the preliminary conference order provided 90
                  days for filing summary judgment motions. However, this is insufficient to
                  demonstrate good cause for the belated filing. Appleyard v. Tigges, 171 A.D.3d
                  534,536 (1st Dep't 2019). Thus, the defendants' motion and the plaintiff's cross-
                  motion for summary judgment must be denied as untimely."

                   (Lopez v Metropolitan Trans. Auth., 2019 WL 2357542 *1 [Sup Ct, NY County 2019]).
           While not mentioning Appleyard in its decision, the Appellate Division, First Department held in
           its order reversing (191 AD3d at 508) that,

                  "Defendants' motion for summary judgment was timely since it was filed within
                  the time period provided in the preliminary conference order. That deadline is
                  controlling, despite the transfer to another Justice with part rules shortening the
                  time, given no subsequent order or directive explicitly providing otherwise (see
                  Encore I, Inc. v Kabcenell, 160 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2018]; Freire-Crespo v 345
                  Park Ave. L.P., 122 AD3d 501 [1st Dept 2014])."

                   The Appleyard Rule may therefore apply where there has been a change in the judge
           assigned, whether before or after the filing of the note of issue .. The relevant inquiry is whether
           there had ever been a preliminary conference order (or, presumably, another order or directive
           from a prior court, such as within a compliance or status conference order) or if the prior court
           relied on its part rules, only, as to the timing of summary judgment motions.

                  If the prior court relied on part rules, only, as to setting forth the timing of motions for
           summary judgment, then any deadline pursuant to the prior court's part rules is superseded at the
           time of the assignment by any part rule of the newly assigned judge concerning the timing of
           summary judgment motions.

                   If the prior court issued an order or directive concerning the timing of summary judgment
           motions, then any prior deadline is superseded on the issuance of a subsequent order or directive
           explicitly providing otherwise, such as by setting forth a different timing pursuant to the new
           court's part rules. Yet it is axiomatic that, if the time to file under the new judge has run prior to
           the assignment, the Appleyard Rule is inapplicable (see Crawford v Liz Claiborne, Inc., 11
           NY3d 810, 813 (2008]).

            156202/2021 KARAMALIS v LEONARD ST. PROPS. GROUP, LTD. et ano.                         Page3 of4
            Motion No. 001

[* 3]                                                     3 of 4
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156202/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

                    All parties to an action are on notice of all NYSCEF filings and must always be familiar
            with and abide by the assigned judge's part rules. This court's part rules require all summary
            judgment motions to be filed within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue, while the prior
            court's part rules and preliminary conference order provided for a 120-day deadline. Notably,
            this court issued a discovery notice 21 days prior to the 60-day summary judgment deadline
            directing that all parties familiarize themselves with the rules, and advising all parties that they
            are deemed on notice of the rules and directed to abide by them. As such, the prior court's
            summary judgment deadline was superseded by this court's issuance of a subsequent directive
            explicitly setting forth a different summary judgment deadline pursuant to this court's part rules
            and comports with the holding in Lopez.

                    Further, as of February 6, 2023, at 3:26 p.m., the timestamp of the court's confirmation
            notice as to the filing of the note of issue, all parties were on notice of the assigned judge having
            changed to Eric. Schumacher of this court. There can be no mistaking that all parties were on
            notice of the reassignment to this court by means of NYSCEF at least 60 days prior to their
            deadline for filing summary judgment motions under this part's rules. As such, the motion is
            untimely and, applying the Appleyard Rule to the facts of this case, there is no good cause shown
            as to the untimeliness of the motion (see~ Mateo v The 63. 65 & 67 W.107th St.
            Condominium, 2024 WL 1741889 [Sup Ct, NY County, April 23, 2024, Schumacher, J.]).

                                                         CONCLUSION

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that the court's decision and order on this motion filed at NYSCEF doc no.
            31 is vacated and is amended and superseded by this order; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the motion is denied as untimely; and it is further

                    ORDERED that, within five days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with
            notice of entry on defendants; and it is further

                    The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    4/25/2024
                      DATE
                                                                        /

                                     ~                                 §
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          0   DENIED          GRANTED IN PART        □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                         SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE
             156202/2021 KARAMALIS v LEONARD ST. PROPS. GROUP, LTD. et ano.                           Page4of4
             Motion No. 001

[* 4]                                                      4 of 4