In H.G. v. New York City Transit Authority, the plaintiffs filed a personal injury claim against the New York City Transit Authority and other defendants, and after the latter were granted summary judgment, dismissing several causes of action, an appeal followed.
The defendants initially submitted only partial excerpts from deposition transcripts to support their motion for summary judgment. While they later provided complete, signed transcripts in their reply, the Appellate Division, Second Department, found this evidence was insufficient to establish a coherent factual narrative or demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment. The court emphasized that deficiencies in a party’s prima facie showing cannot be remedied through reply papers, nor can defendants rely on the plaintiffs’ opposition evidence to strengthen their own case.
Additionally, the defendants failed to submit the pleadings in support of their motion or incorporate them by reference in the e-filed action, further weakening their position. As a result, the AD2 ruled that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied outright, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers, and the underlying determination was reversed.
This decision highlights the importance of presenting a complete and well-supported motion for summary judgment.
Did the defendants get railroaded here?
# # #
DECISION