TRIBECA SPACE MANAGERS INC v. TRIBECA MEWS LTD 25 LLC (2025)

This long-running action, arising from disputes between a condominium board of managers and the condominium's sponsor, was originally tried in 2017. That trial ended in a mistrial. Further motion practice (and unsuccessful settlement efforts), the filing of an amended complaint, and additional post-note discovery then ensued. The action is scheduled to be tried a second time on October 20, 2025. Defendants have now moved for leave to file an untimely summary-judgment motion to dismiss some of plaintiff's remaining claims. The motion is denied.

As defendants candidly acknowledge, the court's deadline for moving summary judgment expired years ago. Defendants offer two justifications why they should be permitted to bring this motion now, out of time. Neither is persuasive.

First, defendants point out, some of the claims (and supporting allegations) that would be the subject of the motion were first asserted in the amended complaint, filed in January 2022. Therefore, defendants assert, they “necessarily could not” move for summary judgment until long after the Note of Issue was filed and the period normally provided to move for summary judgment expired.” (NYSCEF No. 627 at 5.) That explanation, though, does not satisfactorily justify defendants’ waiting for more than three-and-a-half years after the amended complaint was filed to bring this motion.

Second, defendants contend, because this court previously permitted plaintiff to file an untimely summary-judgment motion, denying defendants “their own bite at the summary judgment apple” would “be inequitable.” (NYSCEF No. 622 at 10.) This conclusion does not follow.

This court concluded that plaintiff had shown good cause for its delay in moving for summary judgment, because the issues that were presented by the motion had been the subject of extensive factual development by the parties after the filing of the amended complaint. (See Tribeca Space Mgrs., Inc. v Tribeca Mews Ltd., 2025 NY Slip Op 50108[U], at *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2025].) That is not true of the current motion. Rather, as defendants’ own motion papers reflect, their request for summary judgment on some of plaintiff's causes of action largely rests on the asserted legal insufficiency of those claims as alleged in the amended complaint.¹ (See generally NYSCEF No. 622 at 11-19; see also id. at 15 [“Plaintiff simply fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.”]; NYSCEF No. 627 at 5 [“Plaintiff fails to overcome its fundamental pleading deficiency.”] [emphasis added; capitalization omitted].) The motion does not meaningfully draw on evidence obtained through post-amendment discovery. Defendants do not explain why they nonetheless waited to bring this motion until more than three-and-a-half years after plaintiff filed its amended complaint—and less than three months before the court hears the retrial of the action.²

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendants’ request for leave to move for partial summary judgment out of time is denied.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendants emphasize that CPLR 3211 (e) “explicitly confers upon Defendants the right to move for summary judgment on grounds of failure to state a claim.” (NYSCEF No. 627 at 6.) That defendants may move on this ground, though, does not itself justify a lengthy delay in bringing that motion.

2.   Defendants’ reliance on this court's consideration of plaintiff's untimely summary-judgment motion also begs the question why defendants did not seek summary judgment as a cross-motion on that motion sequence, or in a separate motion brought during the pendency of plaintiff's motion—or, indeed, at any time earlier than several months on from when this court denied that motion.

Gerald Lebovits, J.