A motion for summary judgment is a many-faceted thing, as noted in Natoli v. Trader Joe's E. Inc.

Plaintiff Nicholas Natoli asserted that on October 5, 2018, he sustained physical injuries while entering a Trader Joe's supermarket at 675 6th Avenue (New York, New York). Natoli said a row of shopping carts pushed by defendant Jovani---an employee of Trader Joe’s---struck him, causing the plaintiff to fall. Prior to the completion of discovery, Natoli moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defenses as to comparative negligence. Natoli also sought summary judgment on liability.

In support of his motion, Natoli submitted a witness statement that Jovani’s movements had triggered the tumble. Here, the Appellate Division, First Department found that although the defendants had not yet had an opportunity to depose the plaintiff, the defendants failed to demonstrate that facts essential to justify opposition may exist (but could not be stated). The appellate court further reasoned that the defendants were unable to identify what information was in the exclusive control of plaintiff that would raise a material issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division unanimously modified the earlier ruling, reversing the lower court's decision and granting the plaintiff’s summary judgment on liability. However, the court held that dismissal of the affirmative defense of plaintiff’s alleged comparative fault was unwarranted.