I thought this issue was resolved a long time ago: 3212(a) applies to the lower courts as well as Supreme Court. Here are some examples holding this to be the case: Lance Intern., Inc. v. First Nat. City Bank, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20050 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2010); Coello v. Christakos, 23 Misc.3d 142(A)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009);Khokhlova v. Astoria Caterers, Inc., 20 Misc.3d 137(A)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2008).
So where did Custis v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 20118 (Dis. Ct. Suffolk Co. 3d Dis. 2010) come from? (“At present, however, the legislature appears to have deemed the litigation delays once existing in Supreme and County Court calendar practice (which it addressed in 1996 by adding the one hundred twenty day limitation to CPLR 3212(a)) to be of insufficient magnitude in District Court to apply the limitation here. The Court is also persuaded by Judge Straniere’s opinion in Panicker v. Northfield Savings Bank, 12 Misc 3d 1153(A) (NY City Civ. Ct. 2006) holding that the one hundred twenty day limitation of CPLR 3212(a) is inapplicable to Civil Court summary judgment motions. Accordingly, the defendant’s application is not barred as untimely, and the Court will consider it upon the merits.”)
Your guess is as good as mine.
One Response
If you’re so inclined, here is a good article on 3212(a), CPLR 3212(a)’s Timing Requirement for Summary Judgment Motions: Ona Brill’s Stroll Through Brooklyn and the Dramatic Effect it Has Had on New York State’s Civil Practice, 71 Brook. L. Re. 1529 (2006)