Key Takeaway
Understanding CPLR 3212(f) requirements for additional discovery time in NY litigation. Expert legal guidance on summary judgment practice. Call (516) 750-0595.
Understanding CPLR 3212(f) and When Discovery Doesn’t Save Your Case
In New York civil litigation, timing is everything. When you’re facing a summary judgment motion, understanding the procedural rules that govern your response can mean the difference between having your day in court and watching your case get dismissed. One of the most important—and frequently misunderstood—procedural tools is CPLR Rule 3212(f), which allows parties to seek additional time for discovery before responding to a summary judgment motion.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum regularly handles complex litigation matters throughout Long Island and New York City, helping clients navigate the intricacies of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). Our experienced attorneys understand when CPLR 3212(f) can be your lifeline—and when it cannot save your case.
The Reality of Summary Judgment Practice
In a tribute to the CPLR blog, and DG’s CPLR R. 3212(f) quest, vendetta or obsession (you pick the appropriate one), here is another case where the Appellate Division held that the absence of discovery could not save a litigant from the sword of a summary judgment motion. The common denominator of this and ever 3212 (f) case involves whether the non-moving party has sufficient knowledge of the events so as to provide an affidavit explaining his or her position. If the non-moving party is alleging not to have sufficient information to properly oppose the summary judgment motion, then that non-moving party better explain with great specificity why he or she does not have enough information to oppose the said motion, lest he or she wants to succumb to the same.
What is CPLR 3212(f)?
CPLR 3212(f) provides a crucial safeguard in New York litigation. This rule states that if it appears that a party opposing a summary judgment motion cannot present facts essential to justify opposition, the court may deny the motion, allow time to obtain affidavits or depositions, or make such other order as may be just.
However, this protection is not automatic, and it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card for unprepared litigants. The rule requires parties to demonstrate specifically what additional discovery they need and why they cannot currently respond to the motion adequately.
The High Standard for CPLR 3212(f) Relief
Courts don’t grant CPLR 3212(f) relief lightly. To successfully invoke this rule, the non-moving party must show:
- Facts essential to justify opposition may exist
- Those facts cannot presently be stated
- There is a good reason why the facts cannot be presented at the current time
- There is a reasonable likelihood that additional time will enable the party to obtain the necessary evidence
When Knowledge Defeats Discovery Arguments
The recent Appellate Division case referenced above illustrates a fundamental principle: when a party has sufficient knowledge of the relevant events to mount an opposition, the absence of formal discovery cannot save them from an adverse summary judgment ruling.
The Knowledge Standard
New York courts consistently hold that if the non-moving party has sufficient knowledge of the facts to provide a meaningful response to a summary judgment motion, then CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate. This principle recognizes that litigation is not a fishing expedition—parties must be able to articulate a legitimate basis for their claims or defenses.
The knowledge standard focuses on whether the opposing party can explain their position, not whether they have completed all possible discovery. If you know what happened and can articulate why the moving party shouldn’t win, you don’t need additional discovery time.
Common Mistakes in CPLR 3212(f) Applications
Many litigants and their attorneys make critical errors when seeking CPLR 3212(f) relief, often resulting in the dismissal of otherwise valid claims.
Vague or Conclusory Requests
One of the most common mistakes is submitting vague or conclusory affidavits that fail to specify exactly what additional discovery is needed. Saying “we need more time to investigate” or “additional discovery may reveal relevant facts” is insufficient. Courts require specificity about what you’re looking for and why you believe it exists.
Failure to Explain the Current Inability to Respond
Another frequent error is failing to explain why the party cannot currently respond to the summary judgment motion. If you have access to relevant documents, witnesses, or other evidence that would allow you to craft a response, courts will not grant additional time simply because you haven’t finished investigating every possible angle.
Delay in Seeking Discovery
Courts are also skeptical of CPLR 3212(f) applications when the requesting party has had ample time to conduct discovery but failed to do so diligently. If you’ve been sitting on your hands during the discovery period, don’t expect the court to bail you out when faced with a summary judgment motion.
Strategic Considerations for Long Island and NYC Practitioners
For attorneys practicing in the busy courts of Long Island and New York City, understanding the practical application of CPLR 3212(f) is essential for effective case management.
Early Case Assessment
The key to avoiding CPLR 3212(f) problems is conducting thorough early case assessment. From the moment you accept a case, you should be identifying the key factual and legal issues that will determine the outcome. This allows you to prioritize discovery efforts and ensure you’re prepared to respond to summary judgment motions.
Discovery Planning
Effective discovery planning is crucial. Rather than conducting discovery in a scattershot approach, focus on obtaining the information most likely to be needed to survive summary judgment. This includes identifying key witnesses, securing important documents, and understanding the opposing party’s likely arguments.
Documentation of Discovery Efforts
When you do need to seek CPLR 3212(f) relief, having thorough documentation of your discovery efforts is essential. This includes records of discovery requests sent, responses received, depositions scheduled, and any obstacles encountered in obtaining evidence.
Implications for Personal Injury Practice
In personal injury cases, CPLR 3212(f) issues frequently arise in several contexts:
Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony
Defendants often move for summary judgment early in personal injury cases, arguing that plaintiffs cannot prove causation or the extent of their injuries. If you haven’t yet obtained all medical records or expert opinions, you might need CPLR 3212(f) relief. However, you must be specific about what medical evidence you’re seeking and why it’s essential to your case.
Liability Determinations
In motor vehicle accident cases, defendants might seek summary judgment on liability issues. If key evidence like accident reconstruction reports, surveillance footage, or witness statements is still being obtained, CPLR 3212(f) relief might be appropriate. But you must explain specifically why this evidence is necessary and what you expect it to show.
Damages Calculations
Economic damages calculations often require extensive documentation and expert analysis. If defendants move for summary judgment on damages issues before you’ve completed this analysis, you might seek additional time. However, courts will expect you to explain what specific information you’re missing and how additional time will help you obtain it.
Best Practices for CPLR 3212(f) Applications
When you do need to seek CPLR 3212(f) relief, following best practices can improve your chances of success:
Be Specific and Detailed
Your affidavit should specifically identify what facts you need to establish, what discovery you believe will uncover those facts, and why you cannot currently present those facts. Avoid conclusory statements and focus on concrete, specific needs.
Demonstrate Diligence
Show the court that you’ve been diligent in conducting discovery and that the need for additional time is not due to your own delay or negligence. Provide a timeline of your discovery efforts and explain any obstacles you’ve encountered.
Explain the Likelihood of Success
While you don’t need to guarantee that additional discovery will be fruitful, you should explain why there’s a reasonable likelihood that it will provide the information you need. This might include references to incomplete document productions, identified but not yet deposed witnesses, or pending expert reports.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I automatically get more time for discovery if the other side files for summary judgment early?
No. CPLR 3212(f) relief is not automatic and requires you to make a specific showing about what additional discovery you need and why you can’t currently respond to the motion.
What happens if my CPLR 3212(f) application is denied?
If the court denies your application, you must respond to the summary judgment motion with whatever evidence you currently have. This is why it’s crucial to have a strong fallback position even when seeking additional discovery time.
How much additional time will the court typically grant?
The amount of additional time varies depending on what specific discovery you need to conduct. Courts might grant anywhere from 30 days to several months, depending on the complexity of the required discovery.
Can I seek CPLR 3212(f) relief more than once?
While technically possible, courts are generally unsympathetic to multiple requests for additional discovery time. You should use any granted extension wisely and be prepared to respond definitively at the end of the additional period.
The Bottom Line: Knowledge Trumps Discovery
The central lesson from the appellate case discussed above—and countless others like it—is that CPLR 3212(f) is not a cure-all for inadequate case preparation. When you have sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts to mount a meaningful opposition to summary judgment, courts will not grant additional discovery time simply because you haven’t explored every possible avenue of investigation.
This principle serves important purposes in the judicial system: it prevents cases from dragging on indefinitely, encourages thorough preparation from the outset, and ensures that summary judgment serves its intended purpose of resolving cases where there are no genuine issues of material fact.
Get Experienced Legal Representation
Navigating the complexities of CPLR 3212(f) and summary judgment practice requires experienced legal counsel who understands both the procedural requirements and the strategic considerations involved. At the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, we have extensive experience helping clients throughout Long Island and New York City with all aspects of civil litigation.
Whether you’re facing a summary judgment motion, considering filing one yourself, or need help with discovery planning to avoid CPLR 3212(f) issues, our team has the knowledge and experience to guide you through the process. We understand the high stakes involved in litigation and work diligently to protect our clients’ interests at every stage of the proceedings.
Don’t let procedural missteps derail your case. Call us today at (516) 750-0595 for a consultation. Our experienced litigation attorneys will review your situation, explain your options, and help you develop a strategy that maximizes your chances of success. When it comes to New York civil procedure, experience matters—and we’re here to put that experience to work for you.
Related Articles
- Understanding CPLR 3212(g): When Summary Judgment Relief Becomes Improper
- CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
- An appeal from a judgment after a trial brings up for review a summary judgment motion that was not previously appealed
- Notice of Entry is not what some think it means
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2010, CPLR 3212(f) jurisprudence and procedural requirements may have evolved through appellate decisions and rule amendments. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations regarding discovery sufficiency standards and affidavit requirements when opposing summary judgment motions.
