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
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY’S WITHHOLDING REQUESTED LEGAL SERVICES AND ENGAGING IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM A LEDGE OUTSIDE HIS HOTEL ROOM; HOTEL STAFF DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY OF CARE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; A DELAY AFTER A FAMILY MEMBER’S REQUEST THAT HOTEL STAFF CALL THE POLICE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERT OPINION TO HAVE CAUSED THE SUICIDE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ INSURER OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (BY DEFAULT) THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE, UNDER EITHER CLAIM OR ISSUE PRECLUSION, PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).
SM STABBED INFANT PLAINTIFF SHORTLY AFTER BEING TREATED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WHICH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DETAIN OR REPORT SM; ALTHOUGH SM DID NOT WAIVE THE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF SM’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE OF ANY RELEVANT NONMEDICAL INFORMATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
Prior Ruling on Appeal is Law of the Case for Both Trial and Appellate Courts
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY NO LONGER HAS THE REQUISITE CONNECTION TO RELIGION AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE PRIDE ALLIANCE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION AS AN OFFICIAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION (FIRST DEPT).
Doctor Did Not Have a Duty to Disclose an Email from a Non-Physician Representative of the Implant Manufacturer Which Indicated Plaintiff Might Not Be a Good Candidate for the Implants

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...