Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mendoza v. Highpoint Associates, IX, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 8, 2011Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Acosta, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I disagree with the majority’s assessment of the “threshold procedural issue,” namely, whether the preclusion order prevented defendant from submitting evidence in support of its summary judgment motion. Instead, I agree with plaintiff that defendant, by its own failure to comply with the conditional preclusion order, should be barred from offering affirmative evidence as to liability, either at trial or on the motion, regardless of the order’s reference to “at trial.” Indeed, the majority acknowledges that allowing defendant to submit…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Gordon v. Eastern Railway Supply, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. Di Sabato v. SoffesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
  5. Jones v. 414 Equities LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API