Joseph v 3604 Church LLC

Supreme Court, Kings County

Decided on May 1, 2026

Index No. 519142/2022

Aaron D. Maslow, J.

The following papers efiled on NYSCEF were used on this motion: Document Numbers 71-81.

Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument^FN1, and due deliberation having been had, the within motion is determined as follows.

In this action, Plaintiff claims personal injuries proximately resulting from a fence/barrier which fell on her while walking on a sidewalk as construction took place at the abutting property. Defendants were negligent in creating an unsafe condition, Plaintiff alleges.

Previously, Defendant AFS Systems Inc. moved for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 for dismissal of all claims and cross-claims against it. On January 16, 2026, the Court made an order (entered January 21, 2026), providing as follows:

Defendant AFS Systems Inc.'s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims is DENIED due to non-compliance with IAS Part 2 Rules Part II, Subpart B, § 19, which requires that previous electronically-filed documents be attached as exhibits (see Singh v Shaked, Sup Ct, Kings Co., Index No. 535083/2022, Jan. 9, 2026; copy attached as Appendix A).

In the within motion, said Defendant moves for leave to reargue its motion for summary judgment which was so denied. The notice of motion states, "renew and reargue" (NYSCEF Doc No. 71 at 1), yet the supporting affirmation states, "This motion is strictly limited to re-argument and does not rely upon new facts . . ." (NYSCEF Doc No. 72 ¶ 3). The Court deems this a motion for leave to reargue; nothing new, such as the previous electronically-filed documents, has been included. The affirmant concedes that with respect to its denied summary judgment motion, "While all such documents were relied upon as exhibits to the motion and contained an electronic link to the document in the citation, any document previously e-filed was not attached anew" (id. ¶ 4). It is claimed that "the Court overlooked the citations and their electronic links to the documents cited as exhibits and failed to decide the motion on the merits" (id. ¶ 5).

This motion implicates the issue of inclusion by electronic link of documents previously filed in the Supreme Court's NYSCEF (New York State Courts Electronic Filing) efiling platform — whether a trial court possesses the authority to direct in its Part Rules that all documents referred to be included as attached exhibits filed specifically to the subject motion. In effect, moving Defendant herein argues "No."

Plaintiff, in opposition to moving Defendant's motion to reargue, states, "Instead of filing a motion seeking leave to renew which complies with the part rules, Moving Defendant in essence filed a reargument application styled as both a renewal and reargument application which is still not in compliance with the part rules, attaching only the January 21, 2026 decision of the Court as an exhibit" (NYSCEF Doc No. 77 ¶ 4). Plaintiff is correct.

CPLR 2214 (c), regarding furnishing motion papers to the court, provides that "[t]he moving party shall furnish all other papers not already in the possession of the court necessary to the consideration of the questions involved. Except when the rules of the court provide otherwise, in an e-filed action, a party that files papers in connection with a motion need not include copies of papers that were filed previously electronically with the court, but may make reference to them, giving the docket numbers on the e-filing system. . . . Only papers served in accordance with the provisions of this rule shall be read in support of, or in opposition to, the motion, unless the court for good cause shall otherwise direct." This CPLR provision delegates to individual courts to determine whether documents previously e-filed must be resubmitted as exhibits on motions.

IAS Part 2 Rules now provide as follows with respect to the issue herein^FN2:

§ C19. Previously electronically-filed documents. Where reference is made to a document previously electronically-filed outside the context of the motion, it must be submitted as an exhibit within the motion papers (see Singh v Shaked, 88 Misc 3d 1204[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50024[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2026]; Brick&Mortar LLC v Momo Sushi Inc., 79 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50838[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]). Otherwise, it will not be deemed included in the motion record. The purpose of this rule is to facilitate review of all motion papers in NYSCEF's "Show Motion Folders Only" function.

"This rule is in place because resubmitting previously filed documents enhances the court's ability to determine a motion, and it should not be the court's burden to sift through NYSCEF to locate referenced documents" (Thompson v Doe, 83 Misc 3d 1246[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50930[U], *3 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]; see Brick&Mortar LLC v Momo Sushi Inc., 79 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50838[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]). "It should not be the Court's responsibility to hop around metaphorically like a rabbit on the NYSCEF landing page for a case to locate documents here and there which are referred to. The documents relied on should be uploaded in sequential fashion so that they are all contiguous and the Court can read them in the order of their appearance." (Castaneda v Serrano, 83 Misc 3d 1265[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51036[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]).

NYSCEF contains a feature whereby all of the papers pertinent to a motion are grouped together in one folder for the respective motion sequence number. The feature is called "Show Motion Folders ONLY." If a party submits an affidavit, affirmation, memorandum of law, or other paper containing an electronic link to another document, as moving Defendant claims to have done in the motion sought to be reargued, that other document is not being listed in Show Motion Folders ONLY. That other document is not a separately identified exhibit in Show Motion Folders ONLY. Before even opening a single document the Court should be able to peruse the list of all papers. If a relevant document (linked to electronically) is not in the list, already the Court's review is hampered. The absence of this document impairs the efficient functioning of the court in reviewing the totality of a party's papers submitted on the motion.^FN3

Uploading a copy of document referred to in motion papers as a separate exhibit is not an arduous task. All it takes is to locate the document on NYSCEF, download it, and re-upload it. Performing this task at the direction of the Court so that the Court can efficiently determine the motion in this era of electronic filing of motions — with the Court having to review between one thousand to two thousand motions a year — is not onerous. Moving Defendant's insistence on it not having to perform this task is puzzling.

A trial court possesses the right to enforce the rules governing practice and procedure before it (e.g. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Kahan, 239 AD3d 691 [2d Dept 2025] [plaintiff in foreclosure action to file motion for judgment of foreclosure within one year of entry of order of reference]; Anuchina v Marine Transp. Logistics, Inc., 216 AD3d 1126 [2d Dept 2023] [motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by moving counsel's affirmation attesting to having conferred with opposing counsel in good faith effort to resolve issues]; McGee v Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 AD3d 1446 [3d Dept 2021] [memorandum of law page limit]; Miglionico v Arbors Homeowners' Assn., Inc., 184 AD3d 818 [2d Dept 2020 [written request for adjournment to be made at least two business days prior to return date]; Hornsby v Cathedral Parkway Apts. Corp., 179 AD3d 584 [1st Dept 2020] [affirmation page limit]; Basie v Wiggs, 173 AD3d 1127 [2d Dept 2019] [Matrimonial Part rules]; Appleyard v Tigges, 171 AD3d 534 [1st Dept 2019] [60-day summary judgment motion deadline]; Shah v RBC Capital Mkts. LLC, 115 AD3d 444 [1st Dept 2014] [all outstanding discovery matters to be raised at compliance conferences]; Biscone v Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 [2d Dept 2012] [provide working copies of electronically-filed documents]; Maddaus v Bowman, 12 AD2d 626 [2d Dept 1960] [Statement of Readiness Rule requiring plaintiff to furnish authorization to obtain hospital records]; Shmerelzon v Gravesend Mgt., Inc., 80 Misc 3d 1233[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51155[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [adjournment requests must contain specified data and be submitted three days in advance]; Wade v Khadka, 80 Misc 3d 1222[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51058[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [identify party seeking adjournment and good cause reason]; Brick&Mortar LLC v Momo Sushi Inc., 79 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50838[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [submission of referenced electronically-filed documents as exhibits to motion papers]; Stipa Sprecase v Tenreiro, 2023 WL 3972435 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023] [motions to reargue or renew be made by order to show cause]; Latorre v Rahman, 2022 NY Slip Op 32044[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2022] [no motions allowed until conference is held]; Bedingfield v Dairymade Farms, Inc., 46 Misc 2d 146, 148 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1965] [rule requiring statement of readiness be filed with note of issue "is consistent with the inherent power of the Court to control its business"]; Scully v Jefferson Truck Renting Corp., 43 Misc 2d 48 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1964] [statement of readiness be filed with note of issue]; cf. Crawford v Liz Claiborne, Inc., 11 NY3d 810 [2008] [IAS Part rule not in effect when preliminary conference order issued, resulting in application of Local Rules]). "[I]t is within the court's inherent and statutory power to control the order of its business, and to so conduct its business as to safeguard the rights of all litigants, to preclude unfair procedural advantage to any party, and to prevent needless disruption of orderly court procedures" (Maddaus v Bowman, 12 AD2d at 626).

Not only did moving Defendant fail to comply with IAS Part 2's rule concerning the submission of referred-to documents as exhibits within its previous motion's papers, in the instant motion it has failed to submit all the papers submitted on the previous motion, in contravention of § C25 of the Rules:

§ C25. Reargument, renewal, or vacatur. All motions for reargument, renewal, or vacatur of an order or judgment shall include the following regarding the motion or special proceeding concerning which reargument, renewal, or vacatur is sought:

(a) transcript of any previously held oral argument and any decision rendered from the bench,

(b) any written decision,

(c) the order and/or judgment, and

(d) complete set of the papers originally submitted by all parties. (See Singh v Shaked, 88 Misc 3d 1204[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50024[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2026]; Brick&Mortar LLC v [*2]Momo Sushi Inc., 79 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50838[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023].)

A complete set of the papers submitted with respect to the denied summary judgment motion was not submitted by moving Defendant on the within motion.

Accordingly, this Court holds that a trial court possesses the authority to direct in its Part Rules that all documents referred to be included as attached exhibits filed specifically to the subject motion.

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion of Defendant AFS Systems Inc. seeking leave to reargue (styled as leave to renew and reargue) its motion for summary judgment determined in this Court's January 16, 2026 order is GRANTED, but the Court adheres to its prior determination DENYING summary judgment.