Opinion
10876 Index 157233/17
01-28-2020
Robert HORNSBY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CATHEDRAL PARKWAY APARTMENTS CORP., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Christen Giannaros of counsel), for appellants. Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo & Plotkin LLP, New York (Jeremy A. Hellman of counsel), for respondent.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Christen Giannaros of counsel), for appellants.
Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo & Plotkin LLP, New York (Jeremy A. Hellman of counsel), for respondent.
Kapnick, J.P., Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered July 16, 2019, which, in this personal injury action, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that their motion papers exceeded the court's page limit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendants' summary judgment motion on the ground that their affirmation in support far exceeded the motion court's page limitation rules (see 22 NYCRR 9.1 ; compare Matter of East 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 119 A.D.3d 437, 438, 990 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Macias v. City of Yonkers, 65 A.D.3d 1298, 1299, 885 N.Y.S.2d 613 [2d Dept. 2009] ). If we were to reach the merits, we would find that summary judgment should also be denied in light of the conflicting expert opinions.