Pipelias v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pipelias v. City of New York

99 A.D.3d 685, 952 N.Y.2d 87

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 3, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 685 (Pipelias v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pipelias v. City of New York, 99 A.D.3d 685, 952 N.Y.2d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ separate motions, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, and in dismissing the complaint before the plaintiff presented his case. “ ‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the granting of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improb[686]*686able’ ” (Kamanou v Bert, 94 AD3d 704, 704 [2012], quoting Burbige v Siben & Ferber, 89 AD3d 661, 662 [2011]). Here, the court should have afforded the plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence to the jury before granting the defendants’ separate motions for judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse the judgment, deny the motions, vacate the order entered January 30, 2009, made upon reargument, reinstate the complaint, and remit the mater to the Supreme Court for a new trial, to be conducted before a different Justice.

The Supreme Court, however, did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant P&T Contracting Corp. (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Masik v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 92 AD3d 732 [2012]; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 AD3d 922, 924 [2012]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ separate motions, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, and in dismissing the complaint before the plaintiff presented his case. “ ‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the granting of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improb[686]*686able’ ” (Kamanou v Bert, 94 AD3d 704, 704 [2012], quoting Burbige v Siben & Ferber, 89 AD3d 661, 662 [2011]). Here, the court should have afforded the plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence to the jury before granting the defendants’ separate motions for judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse the judgment, deny the motions, vacate the order entered January 30, 2009, made upon reargument, reinstate the complaint, and remit the mater to the Supreme Court for a new trial, to be conducted before a different Justice.

The Supreme Court, however, did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant P&T Contracting Corp. (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Masik v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 92 AD3d 732 [2012]; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 AD3d 922, 924 [2012]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 685, 952 N.Y.2d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pipelias-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack