Opinion
No. 3024 Index No. 150626/13 Case No. 2023-05468
11-14-2024
Grace M. Lauren, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hotel Pennsylvania, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Vornado Realty Trust, et al., Defendants.
Michael H. Zhu PC, Rego Park (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Ellyn B. Wilder of counsel), for 401 Hotel REIT, LLC, 401 Hotel TRS, Inc, 401 Hotel Management Company, and 401 Commercial LP., respondents.
Michael H. Zhu PC, Rego Park (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Ellyn B. Wilder of counsel), for 401 Hotel REIT, LLC, 401 Hotel TRS, Inc, 401 Hotel Management Company, and 401 Commercial LP., respondents.
Before: Webber, J.P., Singh, Gesmer, González, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2023, which granted the motion of defendants 401 Hotel REIT, LLC, 401 Hotel TRS, Inc., 401 Hotel Management Company, LLC, and 401 Commercial, LP to strike plaintiff's opposition to their summary judgment motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied and the matter remanded for a determination of the summary judgment motion on the merits.
Although plaintiff submitted late opposition papers the day before the return date of the motion (see CPLR 2214[b]), and two weeks after the due date set forth in the parties' court-ordered briefing schedule, we find that plaintiff effectively sought an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 and showed good cause under the circumstances (see N450JE LLC v Priority 1 Aviation, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 631, 633 [1st Dept 2013]). The record shows that plaintiff's counsel did not receive the expert report, which was necessary to oppose defendants' motion, until the eve of the return date on the motion, at which time counsel immediately submitted the opposition papers. This minor delay did not cause defendants prejudice because an extension of time would have provided them the opportunity to reply (see Narvaez v Wadsworth, 165 A.D.3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2018]; see generally Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 N.Y.2d 1, 12 [1989]). Public policy favors resolving disputes on the merits (see Picinic v Seatrain Lines, 117 A.D.2d 504, 508 [1st Dept 1986]). We remand the matter for consideration of the summary judgment motion in view of plaintiff's opposition papers, after defendants are given an opportunity to submit reply papers.