Court Opinion

ID: 9958763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:16.763384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:50.047309
License: Public Domain

Balbuena v 395 Hudson N.Y., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31037(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 151031/2014
                 Judge: David B. Cohen
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. 151031/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 472                                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                                 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                           NEW YORK COUNTY
          PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                             PART   58
                                                                                    Justice
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.         151031/2014
           CELSA BALBUENA,
                                                                                               MOTION SEQ. NO.       009
                                                       Plaintiff,

                                               -v-
                                                                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
           395 HUDSON NEW YORK, LLC and MBI GROUP,                                                     MOTION

                                                       Defendants.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

          The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 401, 402, 403, 404,
          405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425,
          426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446,
          447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467,
          468, 469, 470
          were read on this motion to/for                                               AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS                .

                    In this Labor Law action, defendant 395 Hudson New York, LLC (395 Hudson) moves,

          pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) and 3212, for leave to amend its pleadings and, subsequently, for

          summary judgment on its cross-claims against defendant MBI Group and its claims against third-

          party defendant Collins Building Services, Inc. (Collins).

                                                   I. Factual and Procedural Background

                    Plaintiff commenced this action in February 2014 after she allegedly tripped over

          improperly secured tiles in a building owned by 395 Hudson (NYSCEF Doc No. 403). Shortly

          thereafter, MBI Group and 395 Hudson joined issue with their answers dated March 12, 2014, and

          March 20, 2014, respectively (Doc Nos. 404-405). In their answers, 395 Hudson and MBI Group

          asserted various affirmative defenses as well as cross-claims against each other for, among other

          things, indemnification. In April 2016, 395 Hudson commenced a third-party action against

          Collins, asserting claims of, among other things, common-law and contractual indemnification

           151031/2014 BALBUENA, CELSA vs. 395 HUDSON NEW YORK, LLC                                              Page 1 of 5
           Motion No. 009

           [* 1]
                                                                         1 of 5
                                                                                                             INDEX NO. 151031/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 472                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          (Doc No. 408). Following joinder of issue in the third-party action (Doc No. 409) and the

          completion of discovery, a note of issue was filed in February 2019 (Doc No. 88).

                  395 Hudson now moves to amend its pleadings to include new factual references to an

          “Assignment and Assumption Agreement”1 and, subsequently, for summary judgment on its cross-

          claims against MBI Group and its third-party claims against Collins (Doc No. 401), which MBI

          Group and Collins oppose, respectively (Doc Nos. 432 and 460). Collins also cross-moves for

          summary dismissal of the third-party complaint (Doc No. 341), which 395 Hudson opposes (Doc

          No. 466).

                                              II. Legal Analysis and Conclusions

          A. 395 Hudson’s Motion for Leave to Amend

                  As 395 Hudson’s request for leave to amend its pleadings is unopposed, that branch of 395

          Hudson’s motion is granted.2

          B. 395 Hudson’s Motion for Summary Judgment

                  “A motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined and th[at]

          requirement is strictly adhered to” (City of Rochester v Chiarella, 65 NY2d 92, 101 [1985]

          [citations omitted]; see SHG Resources, LLC v SYTR Real Estate Holdings LLC, 201 AD3d 610,

          611 [1st Dept 2022]). Since 395 Hudson was granted leave to amend its pleadings, issue is no

          longer joined with respect to its cross-claims against MBI Group and its third-party claims against

          Collins. Therefore, the branch of 395 Hudson’s motion seeking summary judgment on those

                   1
                     In its motion papers, 395 Hudson only submitted a proposed amended third-party complaint including
          these new factual references (Doc No. 427), but it also appears that 395 Hudson intended to amend its cross-claims
          against MBI Group to include the same new factual references, it just failed to submit a proposed amended answer
          with cross-claims. 395 Hudson’s prior amended answer included no references to any Assignment and Assumption
          Agreement (Doc No. 407).
                  2
                     Although Collins addressed 395 Hudson’s request for leave to amend its pleadings in its opposition
          papers, Collins explicitly took no position on whether such request should be granted (Doc No. 432 at 32-33).
           151031/2014 BALBUENA, CELSA vs. 395 HUDSON NEW YORK, LLC                                          Page 2 of 5
           Motion No. 009

        [* 2]
                                                               2 of 5
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 151031/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 472                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          claims is premature (see Valentine Tr. v Kernizan, 191 AD2d 159, 160-161 [1st Dept 1993]

          [denying summary judgment motion as premature when motion made at same time as motion for

          leave to amend, which was granted]).

                 Although there have been instances where a court exercised its discretion to simultaneously

          grant a party leave to amend its pleadings while deciding a summary judgment motion without

          responses to such amended pleadings, in those instances the amended pleadings “merely corrected

          a technical defect” in the identification of the complaint’s causes of action and “added no material

          substantive factual allegations” (Stephanie R. Cooper, P.C. v Robert, 78 AD3d 572, 573 [1st Dept

          2010] [finding motion court properly exercised discretion in granting leave to amend while also

          “dispens[ing] with an answer to the amended complaint prior to addressing plaintiff’s summary

          judgment contentions”]).

                 Here, 395 Hudson’s amended pleadings explicitly include new factual references to the

          Assignment and Assumption Agreement, which are central to its contentions regarding summary

          judgment against MBI Group and Collins. Thus, it is improper to dispense with amended answers

          and address issues regarding summary judgment (see R&G Brenner Income Tax Consultants v

          Gilmartin, 166 AD3d 685, 688 [2d Dept 2018] [finding motion court improperly awarded

          summary judgment on causes of action in amended complaint, after simultaneously granting leave

          to amend, because defendant had not answered amended complaint]; cf. Stephanie R. Cooper,

          P.C., 78 AD3d at 573).

          C. Collins’ Cross-Motion for Summary Dismissal

                 Collins’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint must also be

          denied as premature, for the same reasons 395 Hudson’s motion for summary judgment was

          deemed premature.

           151031/2014 BALBUENA, CELSA vs. 395 HUDSON NEW YORK, LLC                             Page 3 of 5
           Motion No. 009

        [* 3]
                                                        3 of 5
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 151031/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 472                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                    Accordingly, it is hereby:

                    ORDERED that the motion by defendant 395 Hudson New York, LLC is decided as

          follows:

                          •   the branch of the motion seeking leave to amend its pleadings is granted; and

                          •   the branch of the motion seeking summary judgment on its cross-claims against

                              defendant MBI Group and third-party claims against third-party defendant Collins

                              Building Services, Inc. is denied as premature; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the cross-motion by third-party defendant Collins Building Services, Inc.

          for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint is denied as premature; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the amended third-party complaint filed on NYSCEF by defendant 395-

          Hudson New York, LLC as NYSCEF Doc No. 427 shall be deemed served upon service of a copy

          of this order with notice of entry upon third-party defendant Collins Building Services, Inc.; and

          it is further

                    ORDERED that defendant 395 Hudson New York, LLC is directed to file an amended

          answer with cross-claims on NYSCEF within 10 days of entry of this order; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the amended answer with cross-claims, once filed, shall be deemed served

          upon service of a copy of this order with notice of entry upon defendant MBI Group; and it is

          further

                    ORDERED that counsel for defendant 395 Hudson New York, LLC shall serve a copy of

          this order with notice of entry upon the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and

          the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119); and it is further

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

          Clerk’s Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

           151031/2014 BALBUENA, CELSA vs. 395 HUDSON NEW YORK, LLC                                Page 4 of 5
           Motion No. 009

       [* 4]
                                                             4 of 5
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 151031/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 472                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Case (accessible at the “E-

          Filing” page on the court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh).

                  3/29/2024
                    DATE                                                       DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.
           CHECK ONE:                 CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      GRANTED             DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

           APPLICATION:               SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

           CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

           151031/2014 BALBUENA, CELSA vs. 395 HUDSON NEW YORK, LLC                              Page 5 of 5
           Motion No. 009

          [* 5]
                                                        5 of 5