A. Schorr

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued the matter was not ready to proceed due to outstanding undertakings and refusals from cross-examination.

The plaintiff agreed to answer all undertakings and refusals within 24 hours and admitted negligence for the purpose of the motion.

The court ordered the summary judgment motion to proceed as scheduled and modified the timetable for the delivery of factums.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages caused by flooding, relying on the lease's insurance and indemnity clauses.

The defendant requested a case conference to argue that summary judgment was inappropriate because a third-party action against its subtenant would continue, risking inconsistent findings.

The court allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed, finding it proportionate and unlikely to result in inconsistent findings, as the third party had not defended the main action and would be bound by its outcome.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the third party to retain counsel and the defendant to conduct cross-examinations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding two properties, alleging they were part of a real estate partnership with his father.

The court found there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land but declined to grant the CPL based on equitable factors.

The court concluded that damages would be a satisfactory remedy and that a CPL should not be used to secure a claim for damages.

The motion was dismissed and the interim CPL was discharged.

The defendants, a law firm and one of its lawyers, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligence, and breach of contract.

The action arose from the defendants' prior representation of the plaintiffs in two litigation matters.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that although there were genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence of damages.

Without evidence of damages, the claim had no chance of success, making a trial unnecessary.