On May 1, 2024, Justice Bannon of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in FX Funding LLC v. Fox Rx Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op. 31587(U), denying a third motion for summary judgment for violating the one motion rule, explaining:
With respect to FX’s motion—the third summary judgment motion it has filed in this case—it is well settled that successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained without a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient justification. To justify a successive summary judgment motion, purportedly new evidence must have been unavailable to the movant before the prior motion. Other justification may include an intervening appellate decision in the same case that clarifies or changes the controlling law. No such showing was made, or even attempted, by FX, on this motion. Indeed, despite its prior summary judgment motion having been initially denied as an improper successive motion, FX does not even acknowledge the fact that it is now pursuing a second successive summary judgment motion. Accordingly, FX’s motion is denied. The plaintiff is
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
aware of the post-judgment enforcement procedures provided in CPLR article 52.