You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEEK LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY...
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEEK LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OFFERED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS; THE EXPLANATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s late motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Defendants did not seek permission to make the late motion and only offered an explanation for the delay in reply papers, which should not have been considered:

Pursuant to CPLR 3212(a), unless the trial court directs otherwise, a motion for summary judgment “shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown” … . Here, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue without seeking leave of court or offering an explanation showing good cause for their delay. As a result, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in considering the defendants’ good cause argument, presented for the first time in reply papers, and in granting their motion … . Rivera v Zouzias, 2021 NY Slip Op 00443, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

You might also like
ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PURCHASERS BREACHED THE CONTRACT OF SALE BY INFORMING THE SELLER THEY WOULD NOT ATTEND THE “TIME OF THE ESSENCE” CLOSING; THEREFORE THE PURCHASERS ARE ENTITLED TO RETURN OF THEIR DEPOSIT (SECOND DEPT).
NEITHER A CERTIFICATION ORDER NOR A STIPULATION EXTENDING THE DATE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 90-DAY NOTICE; THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WAS INVALID; THE MOTION TO RESTORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE ASSUMED THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR AND ELICITED CRUCIAL IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
Court Not Required to Obtain a New Risk Assessment Instrument After People Filed a Petition for an Upward Modification Based Upon a New Offense Committed In Violation of Defendant’s Probation
THE GUARDIAN’S ILLNESS PRECIPITATED THE PETITION TO REMOVE HER; UPON HER RECOVERY THERE WAS NO JUST CAUSE FOR HER REMOVAL; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Contempt Finding Appropriate—Defendant Failed to Comply With Order to Pay Attorney’s Fees

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

PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM PRIOR TO SURGERY DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL... IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE INTRUDER KILLED PLAINTIFF’S...