In Hawthorne v. City of New York , Gwendolyn Hawthorne filed a personal injury case against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and Benjamin Aviles.
Gwendolyn was in the lobby of a NYCHA building when a dog bit her.
After Gwendolyn filed suit, the defendants moved for summary judgment seeking the case's dismissal. When the Bronx County Supreme Court denied that request, the defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Given that the record was "replete with triable factual issues," such as who owned and controlled the dog, and "minimal discovery" had taken place in the case, the AD1 was of the opinion that the motion's denial was appropriate.
Although Aviles attempted to cure the deficiencies of his motion by asserting "new facts and arguments" in a reply, that was conduct which the AD1 characterized as "improper." Yet, if the information supplied by Aviles addressed the underlying issues or concerns (and rendered the case academic) why not allow for its consideration? Why force litigants to engage in an exercise in futility?
Is this a dogged result or what?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Hawthorne v. City of New York