Legal Opinion
Pipelias v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 3, 2012PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ separate motions, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, and in dismissing the complaint before the plaintiff presented his case. “ ‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the granting of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improb*686able’ ” (Kamanou v Bert, 94 AD3d…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Orgel v. Stewart Title InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Burbige v. Siben & FerberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Masik v. Lutheran Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
3Cited by5 opinions
- Schultz v. Hi-Tech Construction & Management Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Fuchs v. Long Beach Med. Ctr.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Palladino v. McCormickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Fishon v. Richmond Univ. Med. Ctr.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
- In re BrownCivil Court of the City of New York · 2016