Understanding CPLR 3212(g): When Summary Judgment Relief Becomes Improper

Key Takeaway

Expert analysis of CPLR 3212(g) and when seeking relief under this provision becomes procedurally improper in New York courts. Call (516) 750-0595 for consultation.

When navigating New York’s complex civil procedure landscape, attorneys and legal professionals across Long Island and New York City frequently encounter challenging questions about summary judgment motions. One particularly nuanced area involves CPLR 3212(g) and when seeking relief specifically under this provision becomes procedurally improper.

The Case That Raised Questions: B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Government Empl. Ins. Co.

B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Government Empl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 20026 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)

This case is weird. Why would a provider move for summary judgment solely to have the court determine that its prima facie case at the time of trial is established? Usually, a provider (or insurance carrier) moves for summary judgment for complete relief either as to the entire complaint or as to a particular bill or bills, and as a backup remedy, seeks partial summary judgment seeking certain facts established as a matter of law for purposes of trial. In the practice commentaries, CPLR 3212(g) is thought of as the provision of the accelerated judgment statute, which salvages an otherwise aborted summary judgment motion.

Just on so many fronts, the litigation strategy involved in this case was bizarre. I have some other thoughts, but I will not express them on here.

Understanding CPLR 3212(g) in Context

What is CPLR 3212(g)?

CPLR 3212(g) serves as a safety net provision within New York’s summary judgment framework. This subdivision allows courts to grant partial summary judgment when complete summary judgment isn’t warranted, but certain facts can still be established as a matter of law for trial purposes.

The provision states that if summary judgment is not granted, the court may nonetheless determine what material facts are not genuinely disputed and direct that those facts be deemed established for trial. This mechanism helps streamline litigation by resolving undisputed factual issues before trial, even when complete summary judgment isn’t appropriate.

The Strategic Considerations

For attorneys practicing in Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and throughout the New York metropolitan area, understanding when to invoke CPLR 3212(g) becomes crucial for effective litigation strategy.

Primary vs. Alternative Relief

The conventional approach involves seeking complete summary judgment as the primary relief, with CPLR 3212(g) serving as alternative or backup relief. This strategy makes practical sense because:

Complete Resolution: Primary summary judgment seeks to resolve the entire claim or specific bills definitively
Efficiency: Obtaining complete judgment eliminates the need for trial preparation and court time
Cost-Effectiveness: Full resolution reduces ongoing litigation expenses for clients
Risk Management: Avoiding trial eliminates the inherent uncertainties of jury deliberation

When CPLR 3212(g) Relief Alone Seems Inappropriate

The B.Y., M.D., P.C. case highlights the unusual nature of seeking relief exclusively under CPLR 3212(g). This approach raises several concerns:

Strategic Questions:

Why settle for partial fact-finding when complete relief might be available?
Does this approach signal weakness in the underlying legal position?
Are there hidden procedural advantages not immediately apparent?

Practical Implications:

Limited immediate benefit to the moving party
Continued litigation expenses and uncertainty
Potential for appellate challenges to the strategic approach

The Broader Context of No-Fault Insurance Litigation

Long Island and NYC No-Fault Practice

In the bustling legal environment of Long Island and New York City, no-fault insurance litigation represents a significant portion of civil practice. Healthcare providers, insurance companies, and their respective counsel regularly engage in complex procedural battles over coverage determinations, medical necessity, and billing disputes.

The stakes in these cases, while often involving seemingly modest amounts, can have far-reaching implications for:

Healthcare Providers: Establishing precedent for future billing practices
Insurance Carriers: Managing claim exposure and settlement patterns
Patients: Ensuring continued access to necessary medical care
Legal Practitioners: Developing effective strategies for client representation

Summary Judgment in No-Fault Cases

Summary judgment motions in no-fault litigation typically focus on several key areas:

Coverage Issues: Whether specific treatments fall within policy coverage
Medical Necessity: The appropriateness and necessity of rendered services
Billing Accuracy: Compliance with fee schedules and billing requirements
Timeliness: Meeting statutory deadlines for claims submission and denial
Documentation: Adequacy of medical records and supporting materials

Best Practices for CPLR 3212 Motions

Strategic Considerations for New York Practitioners

When preparing summary judgment motions in the New York courts, whether in Nassau County District Court, Suffolk County courts, or the various New York City venues, attorneys should consider:

Primary Objectives

Seek complete summary judgment whenever possible
Present clear, undisputed facts supporting the legal position
Address all elements required for the cause of action or defense
Anticipate and preempt likely opposition arguments

Alternative Strategies

Include CPLR 3212(g) relief as backup when complete judgment seems uncertain
Identify specific factual determinations that would benefit trial preparation
Consider settlement leverage created by established facts
Evaluate appellate implications of partial summary judgment

Documentary Requirements

Comprehensive affidavit support for all factual assertions
Expert medical opinions where medical necessity is disputed
Complete billing records and insurance communications
Relevant statutory and regulatory authorities

Frequently Asked Questions About CPLR 3212(g)

What makes CPLR 3212(g) different from regular summary judgment?

CPLR 3212(g) allows courts to establish certain facts as undisputed for trial purposes, even when complete summary judgment isn’t granted. Regular summary judgment seeks to resolve the entire case or specific claims definitively.

When should attorneys consider seeking relief under CPLR 3212(g)?

CPLR 3212(g) relief is most appropriate as alternative relief when complete summary judgment may not be available but certain key facts can be established to streamline trial proceedings.

Can CPLR 3212(g) be the sole basis for a motion?

While technically possible, seeking relief exclusively under CPLR 3212(g) is unusual and potentially strategically questionable, as demonstrated in the B.Y., M.D., P.C. case.

How does CPLR 3212(g) affect trial preparation?

When facts are established under CPLR 3212(g), they become binding for trial purposes, potentially simplifying jury instructions, reducing testimony requirements, and focusing trial issues.

What happens if a CPLR 3212(g) determination is appealed?

Like other summary judgment determinations, CPLR 3212(g) rulings are subject to appellate review, though the standard focuses on whether the established facts were truly undisputed.

The Importance of Experienced Legal Representation

Navigating Complex Procedural Requirements

The intricacies of CPLR 3212 and its various subdivisions require experienced legal guidance. Whether you’re a healthcare provider dealing with insurance denials, an insurance company managing claim exposure, or an individual navigating the no-fault system, having skilled legal representation makes a crucial difference.

Local Expertise Matters

Understanding the specific practices and preferences of courts throughout Long Island and New York City provides significant advantages in litigation strategy. Local knowledge includes:

Court Scheduling Practices: Understanding each court’s motion calendar and timing requirements
Judicial Preferences: Recognizing how different judges approach summary judgment standards
Local Bar Relationships: Leveraging professional relationships for effective case resolution
Settlement Dynamics: Understanding regional settlement patterns and negotiation strategies

Contact an Experienced New York Civil Litigation Attorney

If you’re facing complex civil procedure questions, no-fault insurance disputes, or need guidance on summary judgment strategy, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum provides experienced representation throughout Long Island and New York City.

Our firm understands the nuances of New York civil practice and can help you navigate challenging procedural issues like CPLR 3212(g) applications. Whether you’re dealing with insurance coverage disputes, medical necessity challenges, or other civil litigation matters, we’re here to help.

Call (516) 750-0595 today to schedule a consultation with an experienced New York civil litigation attorney. Don’t let procedural complexities jeopardize your case – get the skilled legal representation you need to protect your interests and achieve favorable results.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2010, New York’s civil practice rules and procedural interpretations may have evolved through court decisions and potential amendments to CPLR 3212(g). Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding summary judgment procedures and any updated judicial interpretations of when relief under this subdivision becomes procedurally improper, as appellate courts may have provided additional guidance on litigation strategy and motion practice in the intervening years.

Filed under: Procedural Issues Summary Judgment Issues

Understanding CPLR 3212(g): When Summary Judgment Relief Becomes Improper