You are here: / / NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT,...

NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s notices of discontinuance were timely. Supreme Court had held the notices were not timely because they were filed after defendants’ motions to dismiss.  The statute requires that a discontinuance (without the need for court involvement) be filed before any responsive pleadings. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading:

​

We conclude that the notices of discontinuance were not untimely because a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 is not a “responsive pleading” for purposes of CPLR 3217 (a) (1). A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 does not fall within the meaning of a “pleading” as defined by CPLR 3011. Rather, a “motion” is defined in the CPLR as “an application for an order” (CPLR 2211). Indeed, the terms “responsive pleading” and “motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211” are not used interchangeably in the CPLR but, rather, are treated as distinct, separate items. For instance, CPLR 3211 (d) provides that, under certain circumstances, “the court may deny the [CPLR 3211] motion, allowing the moving party to assert the objection in his responsive pleading” ([emphasis added]). Likewise, CPLR 3211 (e) provides that, “[a]t any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more grounds set forth in [CPLR 3211 (a)].” It is clear from the language used throughout the CPLR that the Legislature did not intend a CPLR 3211 motion to be considered a “responsive pleading.”  Harris v Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 04970, 4th Dept 6-16-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)/DISCONTINUANCE, NOTICE OF (NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)/RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE FILED AFTER MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE BROUGHT, BUT BEFORE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, WERE TIMELY)

You might also like
DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF, A BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER, FELL FROM AN 8-FOOT UNSECURED LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE A BIRD’S NEST FROM A GUTTER; THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT ROUTINE CLEANING AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA AND FURTIVE MOVEMENTS INSIDE THE VEHICLE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE BY BLOCKING IT WITH THE POLICE CAR (FOURTH DEPT).
“Door-Opening Rule” Applied to Allow Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence/Jury-Note Error Not Preserved
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
COURT ERRED IN CLASSIFYING HOUSE PURCHASED BEFORE MARRIAGE AS MARITAL PROPERTY, HOWEVER THE APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE WAS MARITAL PROPERTY.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT THE TIME OF THE STREET STOP; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL SERVICES WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A CLERK’S JUDGMENT FOR A SUM CERTAIN; DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS WITH NOTICE (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

THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED... STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING...