Court Opinion

ID: 9916547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:44.597965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:33.778804
License: Public Domain

Valdez v AAA Sutter Realty LLC
               2023 NY Slip Op 34584(U)
                   December 15, 2023
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 514548/2019
                  Judge: Ingrid Joseph
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 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                                         INDEX NO. 514548/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                                                                                               At      IAS Term,
                                                                                               At an lAS             Part 83 of
                                                                                                             Term, Part        of the Supreme
                                                                                                                                      Supreme
                                                                                               Court
                                                                                               Court of
                                                                                                      of the  State of
                                                                                                         the State            York,
                                                                                                                       New York,
                                                                                                                    of New          held in and
                                                                                                        County of
                                                                                               for the County       Kings, at the Courthouse,
                                                                                                                 of Kings,          Courthouse,
                                                                                                       Adams Street,
                                                                                               at 360 Adams     Street, Brooklyn,   New York,
                                                                                                                         Brooklyn, New
                                                                                                  the ---lii-
                                                                                               on the
                                                                                               on     _l_5._ day
                                                                                                              day of    '1).e,csM-bAi , 2023.
                                                                                                                   of 'D.e.-C.'SMchAt     2023.

           PRE         HON. INGRID
                SEN T:HON.
           PRESENT:                         J.S.C.
                                    JOSEPH, J.S.C.
                            INGRID JOSEPH,
           SUPREME  COURT
           SUPREME COURT   OF THE
                              THE  STATE
                                   STATE OF  NEW   YORK
                                             NEW YORK
           COUNTY     KINGS
           COUNTY OF KINGS
           ______________________________________________________       -----------------J(
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------X
           MAJ(IMO VALDEZ,
           MAXIMO VALDEZ,

                                                    Plaintiff,
                                                    Plaintiff,
                               -against-
                               -against-                                                               Index      514548/2019
                                                                                                             No.: 514548/2019
                                                                                                       Index No.:

                                                                                                       DECISION AND ORDER
                                                                                                       DECISION AND ORDER
           AAA         REAL TY LLC,
                SUTTER REALTY
           AAA SUTTER               B&F MARKET,
                               LLC, B&F           INC.,
                                        MARKET, INC.,
           and KEY FOOD STORES
               KEY FOOD                         INC.,
                                CO-OPERATIVE, , INC.,
                        STORES CO-OPERATIVE

                                                   Defendants.
                                                   Defendants.
           ______________________________________________________        -----------------J(
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------X
           The following e-filed papers
               following e-filed             herein:
                                        read herein:
                                 papers read                                                                 NYSCEF
                                                                                                             NYSCEF Doc. Nos.:
                                                                                                                    Doc. Nos.:

                        No. 2
           Motion Seq. No.2
           Motion
           Notice
           Notice of                            Support/Exhibits ............................ ...
                     Motion/Affirmation in Support/Exhibits
                  of Motion/Affirmation                                                                        54-67
                                                                                                               54 - 67
           Affirmation    Opposition ................................................................... .
           Affirmation in Opposition                                                                           78
           Reply  Affirmation/Exhibits ................................................................. .
           Reply Affirmation/Exhibits                                                                          93 - 100

           Motion       No. 3
           Motion Seq. No.3
           Notice of Cross-Motion/
           Notice of Cross-Motion/Affirmation        Support/Exhibits ................... .
                                   Affirmation in Support/Exhibits                                             71-76
                                                                                                               71-76
           Affirmation    Opposition/Exhibits ..................................................... .
           Affirmation in Opposition/Exhibits                                                                      - 110
                                                                                                               103 -110

                     Defendant
                     Defendant AAA Sutter Realty
                               AAA Sutter        ("AAA Sutter")
                                          Realty ("AAA          moves for an order,
                                                       Sutter") moves               pursuant to CPLR
                                                                             order, pursuant    CPLR
            3212,
            3212, (a) granting
                      granting it summary
                                  summary judgment
                                          judgment dismissing           Maximo Valdez's
                                                              Plaintiff Maximo
                                                   dismissing Plaintiff                 ("Plaintiff')
                                                                               Valdez's ("Plaintiff')
           complaint and all cross-claims
           complaint         cross-claims against         granting summary
                                          against it, (b) granting summary judgment        cross-claim for
                                                                           judgment on its cross-claim
           contractual
           contractual and
                       and common-law
                           common-law indemnification
                                      indemnification and              with respect
                                                          contribution with
                                                      and contribution                 co~defendants
                                                                            respect to co~defendants
           B&F
           B&F Market,
               Market, Inc. ("B&F")
                            ("B&F") and
                                    and Key Food Stores
                                        Key Food        Co-Operative, Inc. ("Key
                                                 Stores Co-Operative,            Food"), (c) direc;:ting
                                                                           ("Key Food"),     dire<:ting
            co-de~endants
            co-de~endants to assume
                             assume AAA          defense and
                                        Sutter's defense
                                    AAA Sutter's                             of it, and
                                                             indemnification of
                                                         and indemnification                directing co-
                                                                                    and (d) directing
           defendants to pay
           defendants    pay AAA Sutter's defense
                             AAA Sutler's defense costs     attorneys fees (Mot.
                                                  costs and attorneys      (Mot. Seq.         B&F aq.d
                                                                                      No. 2). B&F
                                                                                 Seq. No.2).      af?d
            Key Food
                Food opposes
                     opposes the
                             the portion
                                 portion of
                                         of AAA Sutter's motion
                                            AAA Sutter's        seeking summary
                                                         motion seeking                         cross-
                                                                                judgment on its cross-
                                                                        summary judgment
            claims and
            claims and for an order           them to assume
                                    directing them
                              order directing         assume AAA Sutter's defense
                                                             AAA Sutter's                         cross on
                                                                                          defense cross
                                                                          defense and for defense

                                                                        1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                      INDEX NO. 514548/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           the grounds that
           the grounds that the motion    procedurally defective.
                                motion is procedurally defective.         In his                 Plaintiff opposes
                                                                                 cross-motion,n, Plaintiff
                                                                             his cross-motio               opposes
           AAA Sutter's
           AAA    Sutter's motion
                           motion as procedurally
                                       procedurally defective               basis that
                                                    defective and on the basis                   cede its duty
                                                                                          cannot cede
                                                                                  that it cannot                  its
                                                                                                               to its
                                                                                                          duty to
           tenant
           tenant and
                  and seeks
                       seeks to strike
                                strike its answer
                                           answer for its failure            any discovery
                                                                     provide any
                                                          failure to provide                             No. 3).
                                                                                              (Mot. Seq. No.3).
                                                                                  discovery (Mot.
                   In this
                      this negligence
                           negligence action,
                                      action, Plaintiff
                                              Plaintiff alleges that he sustained
                                                        alleges that              injuries on May
                                                                        sustained injuries            2019,
                                                                                                  25, 2019,
                                                                                              May 25,
           when
           when he
                he was
                   was thrown from his bicycle
                       thrown from     bicycle after    encounteredd a defective
                                               after it encountere               portion of
                                                                       defective portion    pavement in aa
                                                                                         of pavement
           parking lot, which
           parking lot, which was located at 1214 Sutter
                              was located                Avenue in Brooklyn,
                                                  Sutter Avenue    Brooklyn, New       Plaintiff avers
                                                                                 York. Plaintiff
                                                                             New York.
           that the
           that the parking                   AAA Sutter
                                    owned by AAA
                    parking lot is owned                   and was
                                                    Sutter and      being used
                                                                was being         various tenants,
                                                                          used by various           including
                                                                                          tenants, including
           Key
           Key Food.
                 Food. Plaintiff
                        Plaintiff filed
                                  filed his Note
                                            Note of
                                                 of Issue                    (NYSCEF Doc
                                                              June 22, 2021 (NYSCEF
                                                    Issue on June                                       AAA
                                                                                                  51 ). AAA
                                                                                        Doc No. 51).
           Sutter filed its motion
           Sutter           motion on November             (NYSCEF Doc
                                      November 21, 2021 (NYSCEF       Doc No.         opposition was
                                                                                  and opposition
                                                                          No. 54) and                filed
                                                                                                 was filed
           on May
              May 4, 2022,   along with
                       2022, along with Plaintiffs cross-motionn (NYSCEF
                                        Plaintiffs cross-motio   (NYSCEF Doc  No. 71, 78).
                                                                          Doc No.
                   Before
                   Before the Court addresses
                          the Court               merits of
                                    addresses the merits    AAA Sutler's
                                                         of AAA Sutter's motion,    must first determine
                                                                         motion, it must       determine
           whether
           whether it is procedurally
                         procedurally proper.       Plaintiff, B&F
                                              Here, Plaintiff,
                                      proper. Here,            B&F and     Food contend
                                                                   and Key Food              AAA Sutter's
                                                                                        that AAA
                                                                                contend that     Sutter's
           motion is untimely
           motion     untimely because
                                because it was notnot filed within     days of
                                                            within 60 days      the filing
                                                                             of the        of the Note
                                                                                    filing of              Issue.
                                                                                                        of Issue.
                                                                                                  Note of
           AAA Sutter
           AAA   Sutter alleges
                        alleges that
                                that the
                                     the parties
                                         parties agreed     extend the deadline
                                                 agreed to extend                          motions for summary
                                                                                    filing motions
                                                                       deadline for filing             summary
           judgment
           judgment to 120 days
                           days after
                                after the Note
                                          Note of
                                               of Issue                    claims is reflected
                                                                  which it claims
                                                  Issue is filed, which                               proposed
                                                                                     reflected in the proposed
           final pre-note
           final          order that
                 pre-note order  that was
                                      was not              lly filed. The
                                               electronically
                                           not electronica                Final Pre-Note
                                                                      The Final          Order issued
                                                                                Pre-Note Order issued by Justice
                                                                                                      by Justice
           Knipel  does not
           Knipel does       contain language
                         not contain  language regarding
                                                regarding this   extended deadline
                                                            this extended          (NYSCEF Doc
                                                                          deadline (NYSCEF        No. 48).
                                                                                             Doc No.  48).
                 As an initial
                 As    initial matter,
                               matter, "the
                                       "the court may set a date after
                                            court may                  which no [summary
                                                                 after which               judgment] motion
                                                                                [summary judgment]   motion
           may be made"
           may    made" (CPLR
                         (CPLR 3212     [aD. In Kings
                                 3212 [a]).            County, unless
                                                 Kings County,           defendant is the
                                                                unless a defendant        City of
                                                                                      the City        York,
                                                                                                  New York,
                                                                                               of New
           motions
           motions for summary
                       summary judgment
                               judgment must    made within
                                        must be made           days of
                                                     within 60 days    the filing
                                                                    of the        of the
                                                                           filing of     Note of
                                                                                     the Note    Issue
                                                                                              of Issue
           and this
           and      deadline "may
               this deadline "may only     extended by the Court
                                   only be extended         Court upon good cause
                                                                  upon good                (Kings County
                                                                                   shown" (Kings
                                                                            cause shown"           County
           Supreme Court
           Supreme   Court Uniform   Civil Term
                            Uniform Civil  Term Rules,
                                                 Rules, Part           [emphasis added];
                                                                Rule 6 [emphasis
                                                        Part C, Rule              added]; see also CPLR
                                                                                          see also  CPLR
           3212 [a]).
           3212   [aD. The
                        The movant
                             movant must
                                     must proffer          cause for the delay
                                                    "good cause
                                          proffer a "good                                    motion-a
                                                                                  making the motion-a
                                                                         delay in making
           satisfactory explanation
           satisfactory                       untimeline ss-rather than
                         explanation for the untimeliness-rather         simply permitting
                                                                    than simply             meritorious,
                                                                                 permitting meritorious,
            nonprejudicial
            nonprejudicial filings,
                           filings, however
                                    however tardy" (Brill v City
                                            tardy" (Brill        of New
                                                            City of                  648, 652 [2004]).
                                                                                NY3d 648,
                                                                    New York, 2 NY3d          [2004]).
            Accordingly,
            Accordingly, without
                         without a showing
                                   showing of
                                           of "good                         untimely summary
                                                                  delay, an untimely
                                                    cause for the delay,
                                              "good cause                                    judgment
                                                                                     summary judgment
            motion
            motion must
                   must be denied
                           denied without             on of
                                          consideration
                                  without considerati           merits" (Kuyenova
                                                         of the merits"                   Supermarket,
                                                                        (Kuyenova v R & M Supermarket,

            215 AD3d              Dept 2023]
                AD3d 940, 941 [2d Dept                 citations omitted]).
                                             [internal citations
                                       2023] [internal           omitted]).
                  Though the parties
                  Though     parties may have
                                         have agreed
                                               agreed to extend
                                                          extend this            "the court
                                                                       deadline, "the
                                                                  this deadline,      court has     exclusive
                                                                                                the exclusive
                                                                                            has the
            authority to extend
            authority    extend the
                                the statutory
                                    statutory deadline;
                                              deadline; mutual
                                                         mutual agreement  of the
                                                                agreement of      parties without
                                                                              the parties                approval
                                                                                                   court approval
                                                                                          without court
            will
            will not suffice" (Coty
                 not suffice" (Coty v Cnty. of   Clinton, 42 AD3d
                                              of Clinton,                         Dept 2007];
                                                                    612, 614 [3d Dept
                                                             AD3d 612,                                         St.
                                                                                                    Bennett vv St.
                                                                                         2007]; see Bennett

                                                                2

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                                         INDEX NO. 514548/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           John's
           John's Home, 128 AD3d
                  Home, 128                      Dept 2015],
                                            [4th Dept
                            AD3d 1428, 1429 [4th             aff'd 26 NY3d
                                                      2015], aff'd                     ["the court
                                                                                [2015] ["the
                                                                      NY3d 1033 [2015]       court
           was                                               tion of       parties to extend
                                                                      the parties                   motion for
                                                                                                the motion
                                                                                       extend"" the
           was not
               not required
                   required to
                            to accept
                                accept the express   stipulation
                                           express stipula         of the                                    for
           summary                                               accepts AAA     Sutter'ss argument
                                                                          AAA Sutter'               that it
                                                                                           argument that    was
                                                                                                         it was
           summary judgment
                    judgme nt deadline]).
                               deadline]). Even
                                           Even if
                                                 if the  Court accepts
                                                    the Court
           under                                              was extende
                                                    deadlinee was                 parties were
                                                                              the parties
                                                                  extended,d, the                 notice since
                                                                                               on notice
                                                                                          were on               at
                                                                                                          since at
           under the
                 the mistaken  impression
                     mistaken impres  sion that
                                           that the deadlin
           least                                      Pre-Note Order    was entered
                                                                 Order was                   NYSCE F, that
                                                                                        into NYSCEF,          the
                                                                                                         that the
           least April
                 April 20,
                        20, 2021,
                            2021, when
                                   when the
                                          the Final
                                                Final Pre-Note                 entered into
           supposed                                                   the order,
                                                               from the             yet AAA
                                                                           order, yet           Sutter failed
                                                                                          AAA Sutter            to
                                                                                                        failed to
           supposed agreed-upon
                       agreed-upon deadline
                                    deadline waswas missing
                                                      missing from
           affirmatively                                              purported good             argume nts in
                                                                                         cause arguments             reply papers
                                                                                                                 its reply
                                                                                                             in its
           affirma   tively move
                             move for     relief and
                                      for relief  and only
                                                       only raised
                                                              raised purported    good cause                                 papers
           (see St.
           (see  St. John's      Univ. v.
                       John's Univ.      v. Butler
                                             Butler Rogers
                                                     Rogers Baskett                       c., 105 AD3d
                                                                         Architects, P. C.,
                                                                Baskett Architects,                        728, 728
                                                                                                    AD3d 728,      728 [2d[2d Dept
                                                                                                                               Dept
           2013]   [court "provid
                             "providently
                                       ently exercised         discretion in declining
                                              exercised its discretion                                  good cause
                                                                                              conside r good
                                                                               declining to consider                    arguments
                                                                                                               cause arguments
           2013] [court
           raised                                                     citing Cabibe
                                                          papers"], citing                XYZ Assocs.,
                                                                              Cabibell v XYZ              L.P., 36
                                                                                                 Assocs., L.P.,   36 AD3d      498,
                                                                                                                       AD3d 498,
           raised for     the first
                    for the   first time
                                     time in its reply
                                                   reply papers"],
           498-99      [1st Dept                                movants failed to move         vacate the
                                                                                     move to vacate        note of
                                                                                                       the note   of issue,   failed
           498-99 [1st      Dept 2007]      [noting that
                                    2007] [noting    that the movantsfailed                                           issue, failed
           to  seek an                                         motion, and only     raised an excuse
                                                                              only raised                           delay in
                                                                                                            their delay
                                                                                                excuse for their               their
           to seek    an extension
                           extension of of time
                                           time to file the
                                                          the motion,                                                       in their
           reply]). The       Second Depart
                                        Department
                                                 ment has determined        that in such
                                                              determined that                                     Court may
                                                                                                            the Court
                                                                                           circumstances, the
                                                                                    such circumstances,                          not
                                                                                                                           may not
           reply]).     The Second
           exercisee itsits discret
                            discretion
                                     ion and conside
                                               considerr the merits,
                                                                merits, particularly            absencee of
                                                                                           the absenc
                                                                         particularly in the                                (see St.
                                                                                                                surreply (see
                                                                                                         of aa surreply           St.
           exercis
           John's     Univ., 105
                               105 AD3d
                                     AD3d at 728-29        [internall citations
                                                 728-29 [interna                             Harleysville Ins.
                                                                                 omitted]; Harleysville
                                                                      citations omitted];                                  Rosario,
                                                                                                                  Co. vv Rosario,
                                                                                                           Ins. Co.
           John's Univ.,
            17 AD3d
                AD3d 677,                                                         omitted]). It would
                                                                       citations omitted]).                    improper for
                                                                                                   would be improper             the
                                                                                                                             for the
            17             677, 678
                                678 [2d[2d Dept
                                            Dept 2005]      [internall citations
                                                   2005] [interna
            Court to     entertain                                                      judgme nt and
                                                                             summary judgment            therefore, it     must be
                                                                                                                        it must   be
            Court   to enterta   in AAA       Sutter'ss late
                                      AAA Sutter'       late motion
                                                               motion for summary                    and therefore,

           denied.
           denied.
                     The                                          cross-motion,11 wherein       Plainti ff argues
                                                                                     wherein Plaintiff                    AAA
                                                                                                                    that AAA
                                                                                                           argues that
                     The Court
                            Court next
                                    next turns
                                          turns to Plaintiffs
                                                     Plainti ffs cross-motion,
            Sutter'ss failure
                      failure toto provide
                                   provide written   discovery
                                            written discove      warrants the
                                                              ry warrants        striking of
                                                                            the striking          answer pursua
                                                                                           of its answer                 CPLR
                                                                                                                      to CPLR
                                                                                                           pursuantnt to
            Sutter'
            3126(3).). Plaintiff
            3126(3                 contends
                        Plainti ff conten  ds that
                                              that AAA    Sutter has not
                                                   AAA Sutter                              written deman
                                                                           responded to written
                                                                       not responded                demands     dated January
                                                                                                            ds dated   January
            3,                                                      2021, 2 thereby     also violating
                                                                             thereby also                 three court
                                                                                              violating three            orders
                                                                                                                  court orders
            3, 2020,
               2020, February
                        February 28, 28, 2020
                                         2020 andand January
                                                       January 5, 2021,2
            directingg it
                        it to
                           to respond
                               respond.. Plaintiff
                                          Plainti ff claims
                                                     claims that
                                                             that this
                                                                  this amounts        willful and
                                                                        amounts to willful                           behavior.
                                                                                                    contumacious behavior.
                                                                                               and contumacious
            directin
            In                                                           ted its formal   response to Plainti    ffs combin  ed
            In its opposition,
               its opposit   ion, AAA    Sutter asserts
                                   AAA Sutter    asserts that
                                                         that it submit
                                                                 submitted       formal response        Plaintiffs   combined

                                                                                 AAA Sutter's
                                                                   opposition to AAA
                                                      arguments in opposition                 motion for          judgmen
                                                                                                         summaryy judgment.
                                                                                                     for summar                         t.
            11 Plaintiffs
               Plaintiff s cross-motion
                           cross-motion also
                                        also contains
                                             contains arguments                      Sutter's motion
             Since the
             Since  the Court
                          Court has
                                has determined
                                    determined that
                                                that AAA                        untimely will not address those portions of Plaintiffs 's
                                                                     motion is untimely,
                                                           Sutter's motion
                                                     AAA Sutter's                         , it will not address those portions  of Plaintiff
            cross-mo    tion.
            cross-motion.                                                                                                                  Cts
            22 Plaintiffs                                                             Particulars were
                                                                                   of Particulars        dated January
                                                                                                    were dated           3, 2020
                                                                                                                January 3,       (NY St
                                                                                                                            2020 (NY
               Plaintif fs Combined
                           Combined Demands
                                       Demands andand Demand
                                                       Demand for Verified
                                                                    Verified Bill of
                                                                                                                               and  his
                                                                                                                                       St Cts
                                                                                                                                         First
             Elec                                                                  Demands were
                                                                             ental Demands     were dated            28, 2020
                                                                                                           February 28, 2020 and his First
                                                                                                     dated February
             Elec Filing   [NYSCEF]
                   Filing [NYSCE    F] Doc
                                        Doc No.
                                            No. 75).
                                                 75). Plaintiffs   Supplemental
                                                       Plaintiff's Supplem
             Supplemental
             Supplemental     Demands
                              Demand   s were
                                         were dated
                                              dated  January
                                                     January  4, 2021 (id.).
                                                                      (id.).

                                                                            3

                                                                      3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 10:48 AM                                                                  INDEX NO. 514548/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           demands
           demands on June
                      June 3, 2022,
                              2022, after     cross-motion was filed.33 Plaintiff
                                    after the cross-motion              Plaintiff did not file a reply;
           however,
           however, it did file a letter
                                  letter ofrejection  because the responses
                                         of rejection because     responses were untimely. 4
                                                                            were untimely.4
                    Under
                    Under CPLR
                          CPLR 3216,
                               3216, the Court
                                         Court may take
                                                   take certain
                                                        certain actions,
                                                                actions, such
                                                                         such as striking
                                                                                 striking a pleading,
                                                                                            pleading, where
                                                                                                      where
           a party
             party "refuses
                   "refuses to obey
                               obey an order
                                       order for disclosure
                                                 disclosure or willfully
                                                               willfully fails to disclose
                                                                                  disclose information
                                                                                           information which
                                                                                                       which
           the court
               court finds
                     finds ought
                           ought to have been disclosed"
                                    have been disclosed" (CPLR
                                                         (CPLR 3216).
                                                               3216). "Actions
                                                                      "Actions should
                                                                               should be resolved
                                                                                         resolved on
           their
           their merits
                 merits whenever possible, and the drastic
                        whenever possible,         drastic remedy
                                                           remedy of
                                                                  of striking
                                                                     striking a pleading
                                                                                pleading or the alternative
                                                                                                alternative
           remedy of
           remedy    precluding evidence
                  of precluding evidence should
                                         should not be employed
                                                       employed without
                                                                without a clear
                                                                          clear showing
                                                                                showing that
                                                                                        that the failure
                                                                                                 failure
           to comply
              comply with
                     with court-ordered
                          court-ordered discovery
                                        discovery was willful     contumacious" (Rector
                                                      willful and contumacious" (Rector v City
                                                                                          City of
                                                                                               of New
           York, 174 AD3d
                     AD3d 660,
                          660, 660-61
                               660-61 [2d Dept
                                          Dept 2019]).
                                               2019]). When
                                                       When filing
                                                            filing a motion
                                                                     motion relating
                                                                            relating to disclosure,
                                                                                        disclosure, .
           Section
           Section 202.7
                   202.7 of
                         of the Unform
                                Unform Civil
                                       Civil Rules
                                             Rules requires
                                                   requires "an
                                                            "an affirmation
                                                                affirmation that
                                                                            that counsel
                                                                                 counsel has
                                                                                         has conferred
                                                                                             conferred with
                                                                                                       with
           counsel
           counsel for the opposing party in a good
                           opposing party      good faith effort
                                                          effort to resolve
                                                                    resolve the issues raised by the motion"
                                                                                issues raised        motion"
           (22 NYCRR
               NYCRR 202.7).
                     202.7).             This requirement applies
                                         This requirement applies to motions
                                                                     motions made
                                                                             made pursuant
                                                                                  pursuant to CPLR
                                                                                              CPLR 3216
           (Anuchina
           (Anuchina v Marine
                       Marine Transp. Logistics,
                                      Logistics, Inc., 216 AD3d
                                                           AD3d 1126 [2d Dept
                                                                         Dept 2023]).
                                                                              2023]). Here,
                                                                                      Here, Plaintiff's
                                                                                            Plaintiff's
           counsel
           counsel failed
                   failed to submit
                             submit such
                                    such affirmation
                                         affirmation attesting
                                                     attesting to any good
                                                                      good faith
                                                                           faith attempts
                                                                                 attempts to obtain
                                                                                             obtain the
           outstanding
           outstanding discovery.
                       discovery. Moreover,
                                  Moreover, Plaintiff
                                            Plaintiff never
                                                      never moved
                                                            moved to compel
                                                                     compel AAA
                                                                            AAA Sutler's
                                                                                Sutter's disclosure
                                                                                         disclosure
           prior to moving
           prior    moving to strike     answer (Rector,
                              strike its answer              AD3d at 661; Odiorne
                                                (Rector, 174 AD3d         Odiorne v Jascor,
                                                                                    Jascor, Inc., 175 AD3d
                                                                                                      AD3d
           1016, 1016 [4th Dept
                           Dept 2019]
                                2019] ["court properly denied
                                      ["court properly denied the cross
                                                                  cross motion
                                                                        motion [to strike
                                                                                   strike the answer]
                                                                                              answer]
           because plaintiffs did not
           because plaintiffs     not file a motion
                                             motion to compel
                                                       compel discovery pursuant to CPLR
                                                              discovery pursuant    CPLR 3124"]).
                                                                                         3124"]).
                    Accordingly,
                    Accordingly, it is hereby
                                       hereby
                    ORDERED,
                    ORDERED, that
                             that Defendant
                                  Defendant AAA
                                            AAA Sutter
                                                Sutter Realty
                                                       Realty LLC's
                                                              LLC's motion
                                                                    motion (Mot.      No. 2) is
                                                                           (Mot. Seq. No.2)
           DENIED
           DENIED as untimely;
                     untimely; and
                               and it is further
                                         further
                    ORDERED,
                    ORDERED, that
                             that Plaintiff's
                                  Plaintiff's cross-motion
                                              cross-motion to strike (Mot. Seq. No.3)
                                                              strik{~(Mot.      No. 3) is DENIED
                                                                                          DENIED without
                                                                                                 without
           prejudice.
           prejudice.
                    All other
                        other issues
                              issues not
                                     not addressed
                                         addressed herein
                                                   herein are without
                                                              without merit
                                                                      merit or moot.
                                                                               moot.
                    This
                    This constitutes
                         constitutes the decision     order of
                                         decision and order of the Court.
                                                                   Court.
                                                                                                           l

                                                                                     Hon.
                                                                                     Hon. Ingrid
                                                                                          Ingrid o0 eph, J.S.C.
                                                                                                         J.S.C.
                                                                                       Hon.
                                                                                       Hon.lngIng i Joseph
                                                                                                    Joseph
                                                                                     Supreme urt
                                                                                     Supreme       urtJustice
                                                                                                       Justice
             The Court
           3 The  Court also notes that
                        also notes that AAA
                                        AAA Sutter
                                             Sutter filed
                                                    filed its response
                                                              response to Plaintiffs Demand for Verified
                                                                          Plaintiffs Demand     Verified Bill
                                                                                                         Bill of Particulars on
                                                                                                              of Particulars
           June  I, 2022 (NYSCEF
           June 1,2022   (NYSCEF Doc     No. 83).
                                     Doc No.
           4 NYSCEF
           4 NYSCEF DocDoc No.
                             No. 92.

                                                                      4

                                                                  4 of 4
[* 4]