You are here: / / 120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended...
,

120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended by Stipulation

The Fourth Department determined the 120-day time limit for making summary judgment motions (after the filing of a note of issue) was properly extended by stipulation.  The dissent felt that such a stipulation was invalid because it violated public policy: “While we agree with our dissenting colleague that the court was not required to accept the express stipulation of the parties to extend the 120-day deadline in CPLR 3212, we note that the court in fact did so in advance of the motion … . Moreover, unlike our dissenting colleague, we do not view the timing requirements applicable to motions for summary judgment as a matter of public policy that may not be affirmatively waived by a party …”. Bennett v St. John’s Home & St. John’s Health Care Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03952, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

You might also like
PROPERTY OWNER (LANDLORD) LIABLE FOR PAYMENT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK REQUIRED BY THE LEASE AND CONTRACTED FOR BY THE LESSEE.
FAILURE TO MENTION RESTITUTION IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE REQUIRES VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT MUST BE REMEDIED UPON RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Equitable Power to Set Aside a Foreclosure Sale as “An Instrument of Injustice” Explained and Applied
SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).
STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED UNDER DURESS AND WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
AN EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED, ALLOWING TESTIMONY DESCRIBING THE CONTENTS OF DESTROYED VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSE AFTER THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN SEVERED FROM THE ACTION AT THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST, AND AFTER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT HAD REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE TRIAL, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT, THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY INSTRUCTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH 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

Late Notice of Claim Can Be Allowed Even in Absence of Reasonable Excuse Where... Court’s Erroneous Ruling that Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Contest...