Opinion
13111 Index No. 162233/15 Case No. 2019-05080
02-11-2021
Juan LOPEZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Jonathan P. Shaub of counsel), for appellants. Hill & Moin LLP, New York (Cheryl R. Eisberg Moin of counsel), for respondent.
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Jonathan P. Shaub of counsel), for appellants.
Hill & Moin LLP, New York (Cheryl R. Eisberg Moin of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Singh, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz), entered June 4, 2019, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for a determination of the motion on the merits.
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 A.D.3d 450, 71 N.Y.S.3d 348 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Freire–Crespo v. 345 Park Ave. L.P., 122 A.D.3d 501, 998 N.Y.S.2d 3 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
In view of the foregoing, the matter is remanded to Supreme Court for a substantive determination on the merits of the motion (see e.g. Higgins v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 93 A.D.3d 443, 939 N.Y.S.2d 431 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Commissioner of the State Ins. Fund v. Weissman, 90 A.D.3d 417, 417–418, 934 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2011] ).