Summary Judgment Motions in New York & California

Summary judgment motions are a common tool used by litigants to seek a resolution of their dispute without the need for a full trial. Summary judgement can target the entire case or some parts of it, which is called partial summary judgment.  Partial summary judgement is an important tool that can be used by parties in a civil lawsuit to narrow the issues in dispute and move the case towards a resolution.

Partial summary judgment in New York and California

Partial summary judgement is available in both New York and California. Under New York law, a party may move for partial summary judgement on a claim or defense where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Under California law, a party may move for summary judgement on all or part of a cause of action. If the court grants the motion, it will enter judgement in favor of the moving party on that cause of action. The non-moving party may then appeal the decision.

In both New York and California, summary judgment motions are governed by the same basic principles.  Summary judgment is a motion made by a party in a lawsuit in which they argue that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This motion is often used when the facts of the case are not in dispute and the only issue is the legal question of whether the party is entitled to judgment. This essay will discuss the legal principles applicable to summary judgment motions in both New York and California, as well as the strategies available to litigants seeking to defend against such motions.

Summary Judgment Motions in New York

In New York, summary judgment motions are governed by CPLR § 3212. This statute provides that a court may grant summary judgment when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”¹ The burden of proof is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.² The court must consider all evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.³.

In New York, the standard for defending against a summary judgment motion is set forth in Sillman v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395 (1957), where the New York Court of Appeals, held that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute as to any material fact and the only issue is a question of law. In this case, the court held that a plaintiff can defeat a summary judgment motion by demonstrating that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that should be decided by a jury. To do this, the plaintiff must present evidence that is sufficient to raise a reasonable inference of liability. This means that the plaintiff must present evidence that, if believed by the jury, could lead to a verdict in their favor.

Summary Judgment in California

In California, summary judgment motions are governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 437c. This statute provides that a court may grant summary judgment when “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”⁴ The burden of proof is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.⁵ The court must consider all evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.⁶

In Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., the California Supreme Court held that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute as to any material fact and the only issue is a question of law. The court further held that a plaintiff can defeat a summary judgment motion by presenting evidence that raises a triable issue of fact. This means that the plaintiff must present evidence that, if believed by the jury, could lead to a verdict in their favor. The court also held that the plaintiff must present evidence that is sufficient to raise more than a mere suspicion or conjecture of liability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, summary judgment motions are a powerful tool for parties seeking to resolve their disputes without a full trial. In both New York and California, summary judgment motions are governed by similar legal principles and litigants have two primary strategies available to them when defending against such motions.Parties in both New York and California can defend against summary judgment motions by demonstrating that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that should be decided by a jury. To do this, the party must present evidence that is sufficient to raise a reasonable inference or more than a mere suspicion or conjecture of liability. By presenting this evidence, parties can successfully defend against summary judgment motions and have their cases heard by a jury.

Footnotes

1. CPLR § 3212(b).
2. Id.; see also Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980).
3. See Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562; see also Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404 (1957).
4. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c). 5. Id.; see also Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826, 853 (2001).
5. See Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 853; see also Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763, 767 (2001).
6. See Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562; see also Sillman, 3 N.Y.2d at 404; Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 853; Saelzler, 25 Cal.4th at 767.
7. See Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562; see also Sillman, 3 N.Y.2d at 404; Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 853; Saelzler, 25 Cal.4th at 767.