From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clermont v. Hillsdale Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-06166, 2003-03691.

Decided April 5, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner J.), dated June 10, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant Hillsdale Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it individually, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated April 22, 2003, which, upon, in effect, converting the motion in limine of the defendant Hillsdale Industries, Inc., to a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as successor-in-interest to The Pam Company, granted the motion.

Walter J. Sakowski, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (John J. Cullen of counsel), for appellants.

Boeggeman, George, Hodges Corde, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Leslie K. Arfine and Cynthia Dolan of counsel), defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis Fishlinger, Garden City, N.Y. (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for third-party defendant.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., NANCY E. SMITH, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated June 10, 2002, is dismissed as abandoned ( see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]), without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated April 22, 2003, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant Hillsdale Industries, Inc., as successor-in-interest to The Pam Company.

The plaintiff Jean Clermont allegedly was injured when he fell through a defective skylight. As a result of the accident, the plaintiffs commenced this personal injury action against the defendant Hillsdale Industries, Inc. (hereinafter Hillsdale), individually and as successor-in-interest to The Pam Company, as the alleged manufacturer of the skylight. After jury selection, Hillsdale submitted a motion in limine, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was not a successor to The Pam Company. It is undisputed that this motion, which the Supreme Court treated as a motion for summary judgment, was made after the deadline set by the court and more than 120 days after the filing of the plaintiffs' note of issue ( see CPLR 3212[a]). In its decision granting Hillsdale's motion, the Supreme Court invited it to move for summary judgment within 30 days dismissing the complaint against Hillsdale individually. Hillsdale made the motion over three months later for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it individually. The plaintiffs in their brief on appeal make no argument addressed to this dismissal.

It was improper for the Supreme Court, in effect, to convert Hillsdale's motion in limine into one for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as a successor-in-interest to The Pam Company ( see Rivera v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 456, 457). A "motion in limine [is] an inappropriate device to obtain relief in the nature of partial summary judgment" ( Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman, 232 A.D.2d 270; see Rondout Elec. v. Dover Union Free School Dist., 304 A.D.2d 808, 811; Marshall v. 130 N. Bedford Rd. Mount Kisco Corp., 277 A.D.2d 432).

Moreover, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in considering this late motion that it treated as a motion for summary judgment where no good cause for the delay was offered and the plaintiffs suffered prejudice ( see Parker v. New York City Tr. Auth., 307 A.D.2d 285, 286; Rivera v. City of New York, supra; Dono v. Bar Biz Rest. Equip. Corp., 292 A.D.2d 494; Marshall v. 130 N. Bedford Rd. Mount Kisco Corp., supra; Welch v. City of Glen Cove, 273 A.D.2d 302; Morhart v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 438; Johnson v. Town of Fishkill, 262 A.D.2d 532, 533; Deinhardt v. Vought, 258 A.D.2d 432, 433).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties' contentions on the merits of the motion.

PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Clermont v. Hillsdale Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Clermont v. Hillsdale Industries, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JEAN CLERMONT, ET AL., appellants, v. HILLSDALE INDUSTRIES, INC., ETC., ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 901

Citing Cases

Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. Envtl. Risk Solutions, LLC

(Ofman v. Ginsberg. 89 AD3d 908 [2nd Dept. 2011]). A motion In limine is an inappropriate device to obtain…

Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. Envtl. Risk Solutions, LLC

” (Ofman v. Ginsberg, 89 AD3d 908 [2nd Dept.2011] ). A motion In Limine is an inappropriate device to obtain…