Padron v. Granite Broadway Dev. LLC

• Decision Date: 27 September 2019
• Docket Number: Index No. 157049/2013
• Citation: 2019 NY Slip Op 32985 (U)
• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Parties: CARLOS PADRON and ESTELLA PADRON, Plaintiffs v. GRANITE BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT LLC, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., CNY BUILDERS 1717 LLC, and PARKVIEW PLUMBING, INC., Defendants GRANITE BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT LLC and CNY BUILDERS 1717 LLC, Third Party Plaintiffs v. PARKVIEW PLUMBING, INC., Third Party Defendant GRANITE BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT LLC and CNY BUILDERS 1717 LLC, Second Third Party Plaintiffs v. TRANSCONTINENTAL CONTRACTING, INC. d/b/a TRANSCONTINENTAL STEEL, Second Third Party Defendant PARKVIEW PLUMBING, INC., Third Third Party Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE FIRE SPRINKLER CORP. f/k/a ACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER CORP., ACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER NYC, LLC, and R & S UNITED SERVICES, INC., Third Third Party Defendants

2019 NY Slip Op 32985(U)

CARLOS PADRON and ESTELLA PADRON, Plaintiffs v. GRANITE BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT LLC, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,CNY BUILDERS 1717 LLC, and PARKVIEW PLUMBING, INC., DefendantsGRANITE BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT LLC and CNY BUILDERS 1717 LLC, Third Party Plaintiffs v. PARKVIEW PLUMBING, INC., Third Party DefendantGRANITE BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT LLC and CNY BUILDERS 1717 LLC, Second Third Party Plaintiffs v. TRANSCONTINENTAL CONTRACTING, INC. d/b/a TRANSCONTINENTAL STEEL, Second Third Party DefendantPARKVIEW PLUMBING, INC., Third Third Party Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE FIRE SPRINKLER CORP. f/k/a ACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER CORP.,ACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER NYC, LLC, and R & S UNITED SERVICES, INC., Third Third Party Defendants

Index No. 157049/2013

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46

RECEIVED: October 8, 2019

September 27, 2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 491

DECISION AND ORDER

LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.:

Defendant-third party defendant-third third party plaintiff Parkview Plumbing, Inc., moves to preclude third third party defendant R & S United Services, Inc., from presenting evidence in support of or in opposition to summary judgment or at trial. Since R & S United Services has not complied with the order dated March 28, 2019, to appear for a deposition and has not opposed this motion, the court grants Parkview Plumbing's motion to the extent of precluding R & S United Services from presenting evidence in support of or in opposition to summary judgment or at trial. C.P.L.R. § 3126(2); Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d 74, 82-83 (2010); Northway Eng'g v. Felix Indus., 77 N.Y.2d 332, 335 (1991); Garcia v. Defex, 59 A.D.3d 183, 183-84 (1st Dep't 2009); Rosa v. New York City Tr. Auth., 55 A.D.3d 344, 345 (1st Dep't 2008).

Parkview Plumbing also moves to extend its time to file its motion for summary judgment from June 17, 2019, the date to which the order dated March 28, 2019, already extended the deadline, to June 19, 2019, when the court accepted Parkview Plumbing's motion, which Parkview Plumbing actually filed June 18, 2019.Parkview Plumbing presents good cause for this minimal delay: a family emergency that prevented Parkview Plumbing's attorney from filing its motion June 17, 2019. No party contests this excuse or claims prejudice due to this minimal delay. Therefore the court excuses the late filing of Parkview Plumbing's motion for summary judgment, C.P.L.R. §§ 2004, 3212(a); Lewis v. Rutkovsky, 153 A.D.3d 450, 453-54 (1st Dep't 2017); Kase v. H.E.E. Co., 95 A.D.3d 568, 569 (1st Dep't 2012); Butt v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 47 A.D.3d 338, 339-40 (1st Dep't 2007); Mayer v. New York City Tr. Auth., 39 A.D.3d 349, 349 (1st Dep't 2007), but does not extend the time for any other party, since no other party currently moves, let alone shows good cause, for an extension of time. If other parties have moved to excuse the late filing of their motions for summary judgment in conjunction with those motions, the court will consider whether to excuse their lateness in conjunction with those motions. No party currently presents any good cause to extend the deadline for summary judgment motions further. C.P.L.R. § 3212(a); Andron v. City of New York, 117 A.D.3d 526, 526 (1st Dep't 2014); Hernandez v. Central Parking Sys. of N.Y., Inc., 63 A.D.3d 411, 411 (1st Dep't 2009); Giudice v. Green 292 Madison, LLC, 50 A.D.3d 506, 506 (1st Dep't 2008); Jimenez v. Haros, 39 A.D.3d 437, 437 (1st Dep't 2007).

Nor does any party present any justification for staying the filing of opposition or replies to opposition to the already pending motions for summary judgment or for supplementing the motions or opposition. C.P.L.R. §§ 2201, 3212(a). On July 25,2019, long after the note of issue had been...