Con Ed motion in New York

2020While we find Con Ed's motion ill advised, and it was denied by the motion court, the motion was not "so egregious as to constitute frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1" ( Parametric Capital Mgt., LLC v Lacher , 26 AD3d 175, 175 [1st Dept 2006]).

2020While we find Con Ed's motion ill advised, and it was denied by the motion court, the motion was not "so egregious as to constitute frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1" ( Parametric Capital Mgt., LLC v Lacher , 26 AD3d 175, 175 [1st Dept 2006]).

2012Matter of Kuhl v Hubbard, 93 Misc 2d 1058, 1062 [1978]).” ( 82 AD3d at 763 .) The Second Department has also, in the past, discussed the circumstances under which prejudice would negate the good cause shown to excuse improper or a failure to notice pursuant to RPTL 708 (3).

2011Matter of Kuhl v Hubbard, 93 Misc 2d 1058, 1062 [1978]).

2024Con Ed submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, as well as the deposition testimony and an affidavit from its employees regarding the search of Con Ed's records for two years prior to and for the date of the incident, demonstrating that Con Ed performed no work at the location where plaintiff alleged his accident occurred in the complaint and the bill of particulars ( see McDaniel v City of New York , 209 AD3d 409 , 410 [1st Dept 2022]; Flores v City of New York , 29 AD3d 356, 358 [1st Dept 2006]; Cibener v City of New York , 268 AD2d 334, 334-335 [1st Dept 2000]).

2024Con Ed submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony, as well as the deposition testimony and an affidavit from its employees regarding the search of Con Ed's records for two years prior to and for the date of the incident, demonstrating that Con Ed performed no work at the location where plaintiff alleged his accident occurred in the complaint and the bill of particulars ( see McDaniel v City of New York , 209 AD3d 409 , 410 [1st Dept 2022]; Flores v City of New York , 29 AD3d 356, 358 [1st Dept 2006]; Cibener v City of New York , 268 AD2d 334, 334-335 [1st Dept 2000]).

2022Upon our review of the record, we find that petitioner has raised a question of fact warranting denial of Con Ed's motion for summary judgment ( see Matter of Fernandez v Town of Benson , 196 AD3d 1019, 1023 [3d Dept 2021]), and the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for disposition on the counterclaims.

1985Con Ed may well be able to do so, but before its motion is granted at the expense of an unknown number of victims who have suffered injuries the extent and effects of which are also unknown, it should be required to establish that the catastrophic probabilities are great enough to warrant the limitation of duty it seeks (cf. Tobin v Grossman, 24 NY2d 609, 620 [Keating, J., dissenting], supra).