Key Takeaway
Court rules untimely cross-motions for summary judgment won't be excused when seeking relief based on different issues than the main motion, as seen in Leonardi v Cruz.
Leonardi v Cruz, 2010 NY Slip Op 04257 (1sr Dept. 2010)
“Furthermore, although “ cross motion for summary judgment made after the expiration of the statutory 120-day period may be considered by the court, even in the absence of good cause, where a timely motion for summary judgment was made seeking relief nearly identical to that sought by the cross motion” (Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281 , appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 862 ), the issues of liability and serious injury are not so intertwined or nearly identical (see Covert, 53 AD3d at 1148).”
If a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis that its defense was proved prima facie and Plaintiff untimely cross-moves on the basis that it established its prima face case, then it appears that Plaintiff could be out of the box. Similarly, if Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the basis that it established its prima facie case and Defendant untimely cross-moves on the basis that its defense was proved prima facie, then Defendant could also be out of the box.
Or perhaps these issues are “so intertwined or nearly identical.” I do not have the answer on this one.
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
- The Appellate Division has held that “Documentary evidence” under CPLR 3211(a)(1) is quite limited
- CPLR 3212(f) discovery limitations do not apply
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
