Nicole A. McGregor-Mundy
How Judge McGregor-Mundy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary-judgment motions turning on conflicting deposition testimony or affidavits -- whether a construction worker was the sole proximate cause of his own fall, or whether an adverse-possession claimant's fence-line conduct was hostile or permissive -- she consistently declines to resolve credibility on paper, sending the dispute to trial rather than picking a side.
“Conflicting testimonies and affidavits are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ... It is well settled that questions of credibility on a motion for summary judgment should not be determined by the Court.”
In motor-vehicle serious-injury threshold motions, she will credit a defense expert's normal-range-of-motion findings and degenerative-condition theory as a prima facie showing, but a plaintiff's expert can defeat it simply by quantifying continuing limitations and directly rebutting the defense's low-impact-force biomechanical theory -- she does not require the plaintiff's expert to out-credential the defense expert, only to create a genuine factual dispute.
“the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact that she sustained a 'serious injury' within the meaning of Insurance Law Section 5102 (d) ... Dr. Gerling addressed defendant's expert's findings of degenerative condition by stating in his affirmation that the plaintiff's injuries were causally related to the subject accident.”
On discovery-sanctions motions, she distinguishes willfulness (which she will find from a documented pattern of ignored demands, missed depositions, and prior compliance orders) from the severity of the remedy -- she will still soften an outright dismissal into a conditional one where the noncompliance period, though willful, was not especially long.
“Repeated failure to proceed with a deposition or respond to discovery demands, in violation of orders, without any explanation supports a finding willful and contumacious behavior ... given that the period of plaintiff's noncompliance with discovery orders was not extensive ... a conditional order of dismissal is appropriate.”
Procedural preferences
She holds attorney's-fee applications to New York's default rule strictly, declining fee awards absent a specific contractual, statutory, or court-rule basis -- an affirmation and a stipulation of settlement reciting fee-shifting language, without more, was not enough.
“as a general rule, attorneys' fees are incidents of litigation and the prevailing party may not collect them from the losing party unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule ... the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to award attorney's fees on this application.”
She is willing to grant leave to amend a complaint issue-by-issue rather than all-or-nothing, allowing a genuinely viable new theory to proceed while rejecting weaker companion theories in the same motion for failure to plead essential elements like justifiable reliance.
“the branch of plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint to add a breach of contract cause of action is granted, but the remaining branches of the motion are denied ... leave is denied with respect to adding the proposed second, third and fourth causes of action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Since plaintiff supports its conclusory claims of financial hardship from discovery with only an attorney affirmation ... and fails to demonstrate the other factors required for issuance of a protective order ... granting such an order is unwarranted and this branch of plaintiff's motion is denied.”
“Utica's motion to strike plaintiff's complaint for its willful failure to provide discovery (seq. 4) is granted and the action is dismissed unless, within 30 days from service of copy of this Order with notice of entry upon plaintiff, plaintiff responds to Utica's notices of discovery and inspection, and interrogatories ... and produces a person with knowledge ... for deposition.”
“regarding plaintiff's summary judgment motion, considering that court-ordered discovery remains outstanding, the motion is denied as premature (see CPLR Section 3212 [f]) ... denied without prejudice and with leave to renew if the complaint has not been dismissed, upon completion of discovery.”
“the branch of defendant's motion, (Seq 3), seeking to amend the caption to identify the defendant 'ABC Corporation' as '49th St Lot LLC, TLC Group LLC, Bowery Bay Assoc LLC, and Astor Mgmt LLC' (collectively 'Owner Entities'), is granted.”
“the motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment on its claims for encroachment and trespass are granted as to the 2021 fencing erected or installed by the defendant that is located on plaintiff's side of the corrugated fence line.”
“That branch of the plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on its claim for nuisance is denied, as insufficient evidence was submitted to meet its prima facie burden.”
“The defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied to the extent that issues of material fact remain unresolved, such as, among other things, whether the corrugated fence line diverged to defendant's benefit from the survey lines, and if so, whether the corrugated fence was 'hostile' or 'permissive'. The defendant's claim for adverse possession involving the buffer fence line is denied ... The defendant's claim that the 2021 fence establishes adverse possession is denied as it failed to meet the statutory requirement that it be continuous for a ten year period, and under a claim of right.”
“the branch of plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint to add a breach of contract cause of action is granted, but the remaining branches of the motion are denied. Leave is granted to add the proposed first cause of action ... but leave is denied with respect to adding the proposed second, third and fourth causes of action.”
“The branch of Pan's cross-motion for an order compelling defendants to discontinue the holdover proceeding is denied. ... The remaining branch of Pan's cross-motion to compel defendants to resolve the penalty issued against the property and to refund the remaining $22,000 plus interest is also denied.”
“the Lo defendants failed to produce competent evidence indicating that Pan continued to occupy the co-op in violation of paragraph five of the stipulation. Moreover, in light of defendants seeking damages for four years of use and occupancy ... the Lo defendants also failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages. ... defendants have not demonstrated on the record before the court entitlement to an award of damages for breach of contract and use and occupancy of the co-op.”
“The Lo defendants fail to demonstrate their entitlement to attorney's fees and the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to award attorney's fees on this application.”
“In light of the conflicting testimonies and affidavits submitted in support and opposition to the motion, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law Section 240(1) is denied.”
“the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a 'serious injury' as defined in Insurance Law Section 5102(d) is denied.”
“The order, insofar as appealed from, denied, as premature, those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, for summary judgment on their counterclaim for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff does not have a life estate in the subject property, and, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not the owner of the subject property by adverse possession.”
“The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Vornado Realty Trust and Green Acres Mall, LLC, which was to vacate so much of an amended order of the same court (Salvatore J. Modica, J.) entered May 1, 2017, as granted that branch of the motion of the plaintiff Paulette Brown-Wilks which was ... to enforce certain settlement agreements to the extent of awarding damages in favor of the plaintiff Paulette Brown-Wilks and against those defendants.”
“The order, insofar as cross-appealed from, denied the motion of the defendant Johnson Controls, Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. ... ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Paulette Brown-Wilks and insofar as cross-appealed from.”
“Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 20, 2024. Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of so much of the order as continued the temporary restraining order contained in an order to show cause of the same court dated December 5, 2024, pending hearing and determination of the appeal. ... ORDERED that the motion is denied.”
“The defense successfully argued that plaintiff did not sustain a significant disfigurement, fracture, or permanent loss of use of a body organ, function, or system. In fact, their medical expert's findings showed normal range of motion and concluded that plaintiff's alleged injuries were degenerative rather than trauma-induced.”
Put Judge McGregor-Mundy's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge McGregor-Mundy actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge McGregor-Mundy's own signed orders and cites them.