You are here: / / TO CONSIDER A LATE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE PARTIES MUST FIRST BE PUT ON...
,

TO CONSIDER A LATE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE PARTIES MUST FIRST BE PUT ON NOTICE THE MOTION WILL BE TREATED AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the post answer motion to dismiss should not have been heard because there was no notice the motion would be treated as a summary judgment:

By summons and complaint dated July 8, 2021, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover approximately $360,000 in unpaid counsel fees. Defendant answered on or about August 18, 2021 and asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. On September 1, 2022, defendant moved under CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant’s post-answer motion to dismiss was not timely (CPLR 3211 [e] …). Thus, the motion could not be properly considered unless the parties were given adequate prior notice that the motion would be treated as a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 or unless an exception to the notice requirement applied (see CPLR 3211[c] … ). Because defendant does not argue that adequate notice was given or that an exception to the notice requirement applied, we reverse and remand for consideration after the parties are given the requisite notice …   Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP v 3 W. 16th St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04952, First Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: A late (post answer) motion to dismiss should not be considered unless the parties have been notified the motion will be treated as a summary judgment motion, or unless some exception to the notice requirement applies.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
A SAFE ON A HIGH SHELF IN A HOTEL ROOM FELL ON PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT HOTEL DID NOT ADDRESS WHEN THE SAFE WAS LAST INSPECTED; THEREFORE THE HOTEL DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SAFE (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS (FIRST DEPT).
A PRE-JOINDER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO PINPOINT THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A LADDER DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LADDER SHIFTED AS HE USED IT TO THROW TRASH INTO A DUMPSTER; THE ALLEGATION HE WAS TOLD NOT TO USE THAT DUMPSTER DID NOT RAISE A SOLE-PROXIMATE-CAUSE OR RECALCITRANT-EMPLOYEE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST 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

A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO PROVISIONS OF THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT REQUIRED A TRIAL... QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHO HAD THE GREEN LIGHT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER...