Key Takeaway
Court rules that motions in limine cannot be improperly treated as summary judgment motions, highlighting distinct procedural requirements and timing rules.
Procedural motions in civil litigation serve specific purposes and must be used appropriately. The distinction between a motion in limine and a motion for summary judgment is critical, as each has different requirements, timing constraints, and legal standards. When courts confuse these procedural vehicles, it can lead to reversible error.
A motion in limine is typically used to exclude certain evidence or testimony before trial, while a motion for summary judgment seeks to dispose of claims entirely based on the lack of genuine issues of material fact. The timing rules and procedural requirements for each motion are distinct and cannot be interchanged.
The First Department’s decision in Carrasquillo v New York City Dept. of Education demonstrates how courts must carefully distinguish between these different types of motions and apply the appropriate legal standards to each.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Carrasquillo v New York City Dept. of Educ., (DOE), 2013 NY Slip Op 01626 (1st Dept. 2013)
“Plaintiffs’ original notice of claim did not allege that the infant plaintiff slipped on water on the gym floor. It alleged merely that respondents were “negligent in the premises.” This allegation failed to provide respondents with enough information to enable them to investigate the premises liability claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358 ). Plaintiffs may not rely on the complaint (served 13 months after the accident), the bill of particulars (served almost two years after the accident), or the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony (given almost one year after the accident) to alert respondents to their theory of a failure to discover and remedy a wet floor (see Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 ).
The motion court improperly treated the motion in limine to dismiss the negligent [*2]supervision claim as a motion for summary judgment (see Downtown Art Co. v Zimmerman, 232 AD2d 270 ; Brewi-Bijoux v City of New York, 73 AD3d 1112 ).”
Key Takeaway
Courts cannot treat motions in limine as summary judgment motions because they serve different purposes and have distinct procedural requirements. This distinction is crucial for proper case management and ensuring that the appropriate legal standards are applied to each type of motion.
