Vanessa Maranov, etc., appellant, v. Thomas Werney, et al., respondents. (2026)

Submitted—March 10, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

Q/

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unpaid wages, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James Hudson, J.), dated October 23, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the fifth through ninth causes of action and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth and seventh through thirteenth causes of action.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination on the merits of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the fifth through ninth causes of action and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth and seventh through thirteenth causes of action in accordance herewith.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for unpaid wages and to recover on a promissory note.  The plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment on the fifth through ninth causes of action and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims.  The defendants opposed the motion and moved for summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth and seventh through thirteenth causes of action.  In an order dated October 23, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied the plaintiff's motion and granted, as purportedly “unopposed,” the defendants' motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff's memorandum of law submitted in support of her motion, the defendants' attorney affirmation in opposition thereto, the plaintiff's reply memorandum of law, and the defendants' attorney affirmation in support of their motion failed to comply with, as relevant, the word count limits and the word count certification provision in 22 NYCRR 202.8–b(a) and (c) and declined to consider those papers.  Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' motion as “unopposed.”  Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have overlooked the technical defects in the parties' papers (see Taveras v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 225 AD3d 822, 823;  Anuchina v Marine Transp.  Logistics, Inc., 216 AD3d 1126, 1127).  Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination on the merits of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the fifth through ninth causes of action and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth and seventh through thirteenth causes of action (see Macias v. City of Yonkers, 65 AD3d 1298, 1299).

The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court