descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Buffa v. 67 8th Ave. Owners Inc.

Citations: 250 A.D.2d 433; 671 N.Y.S.2d 661; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5562

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 14, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

An order was issued by the Supreme Court of New York County on January 8, 1998, by Justice Elliott Wilk, which vacated a previous judgment from September 15, 1997, that had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to reargue and unanimously affirmed the decision to deny the defendants' earlier motion, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendants had not established a prima facie case for entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the prior motion, rendering the initial grant of summary judgment erroneous. This error was appropriately corrected upon reargument. The decision was concurred by Justices Lerner, Ellerin, Rubin, and Saxe.

Legal Issues Addressed

Correction of Judicial Error on Summary Judgment

Application: Upon reargument, the court corrected the error of granting summary judgment by vacating the initial decision, emphasizing the importance of rectifying judicial errors.

Reasoning: This error was appropriately corrected upon reargument.

Prima Facie Case Requirement for Summary Judgment

Application: The court determined that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, which is a necessary condition for granting summary judgment.

Reasoning: The court found that the defendants had not established a prima facie case for entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the prior motion, rendering the initial grant of summary judgment erroneous.

Reconsideration of Summary Judgment

Application: The court granted the plaintiff's motion to reargue, acknowledging that the previous judgment in favor of the defendants was based on an incorrect application of the law.

Reasoning: The court granted the plaintiff's motion to reargue and unanimously affirmed the decision to deny the defendants' earlier motion, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.