Third-Party Defendant Fails to Reargue Law of the Case
Even if you ask nicely, the Court rarely changes its mind.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, New York County denied third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint.
In Garcia v. 100 Church Fee Owner, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 30716(U), plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a metal object fell down an elevator shaft and struck him.
In an earlier motion, not the motion at issue in this decision, the Supreme Court, New York County denied the third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to contractual indemnity and contribution while also granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. In that earlier decision, the Court held that there were questions of fact with regard to whether the third-party defendants were actually negligent in supervising adequately with various trades at the construction project. The Court noted that this specific issue of fact had yet to be resolved, despite the parties moving forward with discovery, warranting denial of the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
It’s important to follow the law of the case when making subsequent motions for dismissal in New York actions. If the Court indicates there is an issue of fact, you’d expect the moving party to make doubly sure that it’s been resolved before moving to dismiss any complaint thereafter. It appears that was not the case here.
The Garcia decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.