Brill v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
2 N.Y.3d 648, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431 (2004)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Ona and Maurice Brill (plaintiffs) sued the City of New York (city) (defendant), seeking damages for injuries that Ona sustained when she tripped and fell on a public sidewalk. In June 2001, the Brills filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness (i.e., confirmation that discovery was complete and that the case was ready for trial). Nearly a year later, in June 2002, the city moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable because it did not have notice of the defective sidewalk before Ona’s accident. The city did not try to justify its failure to comply with Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3212(a), which provided that absent a different court-ordered deadline or leave of the court upon a showing of good cause, a summary-judgment motion had to be made no more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue. The supreme court granted the city’s untimely summary-judgment motion, ruling that the Brills would not be prejudiced and that summary judgment would serve judicial economy. The appellate division affirmed. The Brills appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
