Court Opinion

ID: 9966369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 20:08:23.460602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:53.002268
License: Public Domain

Kearns v One N.Y. Plaza Co. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31552(U)
                      May 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157508/2021
                 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. 157508/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                        NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. ERIC SCHUMACHER                                     PART                                 23M
                                Justice
            --------------------.X                                                  INDEX NO.               157508/2021
             JUDY DANIELS KEARNS et ano.,
                                                                                    MOTION DATE              05/01/2024
                                                Plaintiffs,
                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.              002
                                         -v-
             ONE NEW YORK PLAZA CO. LLC et al.,                                    AMENDED DECISION + ORDER
                                                                                         ON MOTION
                                                Defendants.
            --------------------X
            NYSCEF doc nos. 39-63, 67-68, and 71-82 were read on this motion for summary judgment.

           Motions by defendant ABM Janitorial Services Northeast Inc. (hereinafter ABM) and by
           defendants One New York Plaza Co. LLC and Brookfield Properties (USA II) LLC (hereinafter
           collectively the Brookfield Parties) for summary judgment denied as untimely 1•

                                                         BACKGROUND

                  Plaintiffs commenced this action on August 11, 2021, by filing the summons and
           complaint (see NYSCEF doc no. 1). On August 19, 2022, the prior court issued a preliminary
           conference order setting forth that "[a]ny dispositive motion(s) shall be made on or before 120
           days after filing [] the [note of issue]'' (NYSCEF doc no. 17 at 2).

                    As is relevant here, court administration reassigned the case to this court in early 2023.
           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]).

                   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.
           33 at 1). A hyperlink to this court's part rules appears in the notice.

                    On April 26, 2023, this court issued a compliance conference order setting forth that
           "[a]ll dispositive motions must be filed within 60 days of the note of issue" (NYSCEF doc no. 36
           at 2). On August 2, 2023, this court issued a status conference order again setting forth that "[a]U
           dispositive motions must be filed within 60 days of the note of issue" (NYSCEF doc no. 3 7 at 2).

           1
             This order vacates, amends, and supersedes the previous decision and order of the court dated April 2, 2024 ~
           NYSCEF doc no. 83).
             157508/2021 KEARNS et ano. v ONE NEW YORK PLAZA CO. LLC et al.                                  Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 002

[* 1]                                                          1 of 4
                                                                                                              INDEX NO. 157508/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                       On August 14, 2023, plaintiffs filed the note of issue (see NYSCEF doc no. 38).

                    On October 31, 2023, ABM filed its motion for summary judgment (see NYSCEF doc
            no. 39). On December 12, 2023, the Brookfield Parties filed a "Notice of Cross-Motion" and
            supporting documents (see NYSCEF doc nos. 60-62). No party addresses the timeliness of the
            motions in any of the papers submitted.

                                                            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 Dept2018] (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 [l st Dept 2007]).

                    Here, the deadline set by this court 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 August 14, 2023. 60
            days from the filing of the note of issue was October 13, 2023. ABM's motion for summary
            judgment was filed on October 31, 2023, 78 days after the filing of the note of issue. The
            Brookfield Parties' motion2 was filed on December 12, 2023, 120 days after the filing of the note
            of issue. As such, both motions are 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 [l st 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).

            2
             The motion is not a true cross motion as it targets plaintiffs, not ABM (see Kershaw v Hosp. for Special Surgery.
            114 AD3d 75, 87 [1st Dept 2013]; see also Connorv AMA Consulting Engrs. PC, 213 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2023]).
                157508/2021 KEARNS et ano. v ONE NEW YORK PLAZA CO. LLC et al.                                 Page 2of4
                Motion No. 002

[* 2]                                                           2 of 4
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157508/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

                    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
            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. 24491/2014E, 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 [I st 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 plaintiffs 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
            as~igned, 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 (see Mateo v The 63,
            65 & 67 W.107th St. Condominium, 2024 NY Slip Op 24123, *3 [Sup Ct, NY County, April 23,
            2024, Schumacher, J.]).

                   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 (see id.).

                   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 (see
            Giudice v Green 292 Madison, LLC, 50 AD3d 506, 506 [1st Dept 2008]) or directive explicitly

             157508/2021 KEARNS et ano. v ONE NEW YORK PLAZA CO. LLC et al.                       Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

[* 3]                                                       3 of 4
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157508/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2024

            providing otherwise, such as by setting forth a different timing pursuant to the new court's part
            rules (see Mateo *3). 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]).

                   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 directing the parties to familiarize themselves and abide by
           the court's part rules, as well as two discovery conference orders which set forth the 60-day
           summary judgment deadline. Defendants appeared at the conferences, ABM annexed the orders
           to the moving papers together with the note of issue (affirmation of O'Connell, exhibit 8, at 4-7),
           and the Brookfield Parties referenced the orders in their papers (affirmation of Lange ,r 11). As
           such, and in accord with Lopez, the prior court's summary judgment deadline was superseded by
           this court's 60-day deadline as directed in a discovery notice and set forth in the two discovery
           conference orders issued by this court.

                   There can be no mistaking that all parties were on notice of this court's summary
           judgment motion deadline prior to the filing of the note of issue by means of this court's two
           discovery conference orders and the March 17, 2023 discovery notice directing the parties to
           familiarize themselves and abide by this court's part rules. As such, the motions are untimely
           and, applying the Appleyard Rule to the facts of this case, there is no good cause shown as to the
           untimeliness of the motions.

                                                         CONCLUSION

                   Accordingly, it is

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

                   ORDERED that the motions are denied as untimely; and it is further

                   ORDERED that, within five days of entry, plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order with
           notice of entry on defendants.

                   The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    5/1/2024
                     DATE

                                    ~
            CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                  X    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          0    DENIED        GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                        SUBMIT ORDER
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN          FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

            157508/2021 KEARNS et ano. v ONE NEW YORK PLAZA CO. LLC et al.                             Page4of4
            Motion No. 002

[* 4]                                                         4 of 4