Judicial Notice in a Quirky Case & CPLR R. 3212 & A Twist at the End.

Williams v Naylor, 2009 NY Slip Op 05770 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The plaintiffs raise legal arguments which appear on the face of the
record and could not have been avoided had they been brought to the
attention of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the grounds for reversal
urged by the plaintiffs may be considered by this Court even though
they have been raised for the first time on appeal (see Matter of 200 Cent. Ave., LLC v Board of Assessors, 56 AD3d 679, 680; Buywise Holding, LLC v Harris, 31 AD3d 681, 682; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Olsen, 22 AD3d 673, 674; Beepat v James, 303 AD2d 345, 346; Weiner v MKVII-Westchester, 292 AD2d 597, 598; Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730, 732; 11 Carmody-Wait 2d § 72:133, at 347-348).

The Supreme Court improperly granted the oral application of the
defendant Emeka Okeke, which was, in effect, for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The oral
application was not supported by any motion papers, no formal motion
was made on notice to the plaintiff, and the application was made after
jury selection had been completed and more than 120 days after the note
of issue had been filed, without any showing of good cause (see CPLR 3212[a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648; Giannattasio v Han Suk Kang, 30 AD3d 375; Long v Children's Vil., Inc., 24 AD3d 518; Minucci v City of New York, 303 AD2d 473; Hilton [*2]v City of New Rochelle, 298 AD2d 360; Diaz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 289 AD2d 365, 366; Martin Iron & Constr. Co. v Grace Indus., 285 AD2d 494, 495).

In light of our discretion to "take judicial notice of a record" in "the pending matter" (Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc., 22 AD3d 445,
446), we take judicial notice of the proceedings held on November 1,
2007, in this action. Under the circumstances of this case, upon
remittitur to the Supreme Court, Queens County, all further proceedings
in this action shall be conducted before another Justice (see Ling Fei Sun v City of New York, 55 AD3d 795, 796; Doe v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 54 AD3d 352, 354).

In light of our determination, the parties' remaining contentions need not be addressed.

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

2008-03467 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Kamil Williams, etc., et al., appellants, v Margaret

Naylor, etc., et al., respondents.

(Index No. 25862/04)

Motion by the respondent on an appeal from a judgment of the
Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 3, 2008, to strike stated
portions of the appellants' appendix and brief on the ground that the
appendix contains matter dehors the record, and that the brief refers
to matter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this
Court dated February 18, 2009, the motion was held in abeyance and
referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination
upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers
filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

The bold is mine.

Wow, just Wow.  Look at the last sentence in the last bolded paragraph.