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
DEFENDANTS “EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (ELCA)” AND “UPSTATE NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (SYNOD)” HAD THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATE A PASTOR ACCUSED OF ABUSE; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE THE PASTOR’S EMPLOYERS; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
A SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBER WHO YELLED “BE QUIET” INTO A MICROPHONE, THE LOUDNESS OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD, DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OWED TO THE STUDENT; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION TO THE THERAPISTS BY CONDITIONING FATHER’S VISITATION ON HIS PARTICIPATION IN THERAPEUTIC COUNSELING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT PRECISELY IDENTIFY WHICH OF TWO UNDERLYING OFFENSES IT DESCRIBED AND DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE INSTALLATION OF MOTION-ACTIVATED SECURITY LIGHTS WHICH SHINE INTO A NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY CAN CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE NUISANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RULING THAT DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
THE CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE OFFENSES DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN ONTARIO COUNTY AND DID NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR EFFECT ON ONTARIO COUNTY; THEREFORE THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM (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...