You are here: / / Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Denied—No Showing of Good Cause for t...

Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Denied—No Showing of Good Cause for the Delay/Motion Was Mislabeled as a Cross Motion

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, over a dissent, the First Department determined an untimely motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there was no explanation for the delay.  The court noted the motion was mislabeled as a cross-motion because it did not address the issues raised in the original motion, but rather addressed the allegations in the complaint:

Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the “recurring scenario” of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect “ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice” (2 NY3d at 650). Brill holds that to rein in these late motions, brought as late as shortly before trial, CPLR 3212(a) requires that motions for summary judgment must be brought within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue or the time established by the court; where a motion is untimely, the movant must show good cause for the delay, otherwise the late motion will not be addressed … .  * * * Brill draws a bright line based on the two elements of CPLR 3212(a): the statutorily imposed or court-imposed deadlines for filing summary judgment motions, and the showing of good cause by a late movant in order for its motion to be considered. * * *

We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. Rather, we enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as explained in Brill. It is up to the litigant to show the court why the rule should be flexible in the particular circumstances, or, in the words of the statute, that there is “good cause shown” for the delay. * * *

To the extent [the] motion was directed at the complaint, as opposed to any cross claims …, and was not made returnable the same day as the original motion, it was not a cross motion as defined in CPLR 2215. The rule is that a cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking relief from a nonmoving party… . Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 2013 NY Slip Op 08548, 1st Dept 12-24-13

 

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER VIOLATED RULES IMPOSED BY THE “STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION” (SIST) REGIMEN, HE DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY DANGEROUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFINED AND SHOULD BE RELEASED AND MANAGED UNDER “SIST” (FIRST DEPT).
REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE, BASED UPON A 1995 DEFAULT CONVICTION OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS APPARENTLY UNAWARE, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FIRST DEPT).
Wrong Incident-Address in Notice of Claim (Not Intended to Mislead and Not Resulting in Prejudice to Defendant) Can Be Corrected​
Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties
Plaintiffs, Who Provided Management Services to a Club Described in the Media as “Run by the Mafia,” Did Not Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Remark Was “Of and Concerning” the Plaintiffs by “Innuendo”
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR WORK ON THE AREA OF THE FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT BEEN DEPOSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED.
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
Elements of Tampering with Physical Evidence

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Planning Board’s Determination Subdivision Was Exempt from Conservation Measures... Administrative Decision Maker, Who Had Previously Ruled Against Petitioner/Employee...