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 DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK. LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT’S PHARMACY RECORDS IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE COLLISION CASE ARE NOT PROTECTED BY PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE AND MUST BE DISCLOSED SUBJECT TO TIME LIMITATIONS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN “CLOSE PROXIMITY” TO THE DRUGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “ROOM” OR “DRUG FACTORY” PRESUMPTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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).
ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE EXCESSIVE SPEED OF THE POLICE VEHICLE AND WHETHER THE SIREN WAS ON AS REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AMOUNTED TO AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE, NOT AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION; SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES TO THE TOWN ENCROACHED UPON THE TOWN’S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY (FOURTH DEPT).
Hearing Required to Determine Whether Defense Counsel’s Failure to Take Appropriate Steps to Have a Federal Prisoner Testify for the Defense Constituted Ineffective Assistance
PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHOSE SON IS MARRIED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED.

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...