You are here: / / Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Which Is Nearly Identical to a Summary...

Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Which Is Nearly Identical to a Summary Judgment Motion Already Before the Court Should Be Considered

The Second Department explained when an untimely summary judgment motion, which is nearly identical to a timely summary judgment motion already before the court, should be considered:

While the cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was facially untimely …, an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds … . “In such circumstances, the issues raised by the untimely cross motion are already properly before the motion court and, thus, the nearly identical nature of the grounds may provide the requisite good cause (see CPLR 3212 [a]) to review the merits of the untimely cross motion. Notably, a court, in deciding the timely motion, may search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party” (…see CPLR 3212 [b]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have entertained the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Wernicki v Knipper, 2014 NY Slip Op 05324, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
THE LEG OF A LARGE DECORATIVE THRONE IN DEFENDANT’S BAR WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE TRIPPING HAZARD; PLAINTIFF HAD FREQUENTED THE BAR AND THE THRONE WAS READILY OBSERVABLE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT NECESSARY PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN JOINED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; THE PROPER REMEDY IS TO SUMMON THE NECESSARY PARTIES, NOT DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHILE ATTENDING A BEACH-FRONT PARTY, SUFFERED SEVERE INJURY WHEN HE DOVE OFF A BULKHEAD INTO SHALLOW WATER; HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR FAILURE TO WARN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST THE PERSON WHO RENTED THE AREA FOR THE PARTY WAS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO RENDER THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

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

No Showing Attorney Had Acquired Any Client Confidences Before Changing Fir... Transactional Res Judicata Analysis Explained