GCM FUNDING LLC v. PULSE NAIL SPA IN BUFORD LLC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (David S. Zuckerman, J.), dated June 6, 2025.  The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In November 2023, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and to recover on personal guaranties, alleging, among other things, that the defendant Pulse Nail Spa in Buford, LLC (hereinafter Pulse), failed to make payments due pursuant to an agreement whereby the plaintiff purchased future receivables from Pulse.  Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint.  The defendants opposed the motion.  In an order dated January 13, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion.

In May 2025, the plaintiff made a second motion for summary judgment on the complaint.  In an order dated June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for making a successive motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff appeals.

“ ‘Successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained in the absence of good cause, such as a showing of newly discovered evidence’ ” (U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Green–Stevenson, 208 AD3d 1205, 1206, quoting Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Elshiekh, 179 AD3d 1017, 1020).  A “ ‘narrow exception to the successive summary judgment rule ․ permits entertainment of a successive motion when it is substantially valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the court’ ” (HSBC Mtge. Corp. [USA] v. Kahan, 244 AD3d 1199, 1200–1201, quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gittens, 217 AD3d 901, 903).  “However, ‘[s]uccessive motions for the same relief burden the courts and contribute to the delay and cost of litigation’ ” (id. at 1201, quoting Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Elshiekh, 179 AD3d at 1020).

Here, the plaintiff presented no argument as to why the evidence submitted in support of its second motion was not available when it made its prior motion and, therefore, failed to demonstrate good cause (see id. at 1200).  Further, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff's second motion did not fit within the narrow exception to the successive summary judgment rule (see id. at 1201;  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gittens, 217 AD3d at 903).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to entertain the plaintiff's successive motion for summary judgment (see Bockstruck v. Town of Islip, 219 AD3d 439, 442).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.

DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.