An untimely cross-motion will not be forgiven when the sought after relief is based upon a "different" issue than that found in the main motion

Navigating the 120-Day Rule and Cross-Motion Exception Standards

New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules impose strict time limitations on summary judgment motions to promote efficient case progression and prevent indefinite postponement of trials. CPLR 3212(a) generally requires summary judgment motions to be made within 120 days after filing of the note of issue, absent good cause for delay. This deadline serves important case management functions by forcing parties to seek dispositive relief promptly rather than waiting until trial approaches, when late motions would waste judicial resources on prolonged adjournments and disrupt court calendars.

However, recognizing that efficiency concerns differ when one party has already made a timely motion, courts developed a limited exception permitting untimely cross-motions when they seek relief “nearly identical” to that sought in timely main motions. The rationale for this exception is straightforward: if the court must already conduct summary judgment analysis on specific legal issues raised by a timely motion, allowing a cross-motion addressing those same issues adds minimal additional burden while promoting complete resolution of dispositive questions. This exception balances the efficiency goals of the 120-day rule against the policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits when possible.

The critical limitation on this exception—and the focus of the Leonardi decision—is that cross-motions must genuinely address issues “nearly identical” to those in the main motion. Courts strictly construe this requirement because permitting untimely cross-motions on unrelated issues would eviscerate the 120-day rule entirely. If parties could simply piggyback any untimely motion onto any timely motion regardless of subject matter similarity, the statutory deadline would become meaningless. Therefore, courts carefully analyze whether the legal and factual issues raised in untimely cross-motions truly mirror those in the main motion or instead inject new questions requiring separate analysis.

This case presents a particularly interesting application of the “nearly identical” standard in the personal injury context, where defendants’ motions for summary judgment typically address whether plaintiffs sustained serious injuries under Insurance Law Section 5102(d), while plaintiffs’ motions typically address whether defendants were negligent and causally responsible for injuries. These issues, though arising from the same accident and both essential to plaintiff’s ultimate recovery, require analysis of different facts and legal standards—injury severity versus fault. The question becomes whether this shared factual background renders the issues “nearly identical” or whether the distinct legal questions and proof requirements make them sufficiently different to preclude the cross-motion exception.

Attorney Tenenbaum’s observation highlights the uncertainty this creates: if a defendant moves on serious injury grounds and plaintiff untimely cross-moves on liability grounds, can the cross-motion proceed under the exception? What about the reverse scenario? The ambiguity surrounding whether these issues are “intertwined or nearly identical” creates strategic dilemmas for practitioners attempting to navigate motion practice deadlines.

Case Background: Untimely Cross-Motion on Distinct Legal Grounds

In Leonardi v Cruz, the parties litigated a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident. One party made a timely summary judgment motion within the 120-day CPLR 3212(a) deadline addressing certain issues in the case. The opposing party, having missed the 120-day deadline, attempted to bring a cross-motion for summary judgment on different grounds.

The timely main motion and untimely cross-motion addressed distinct legal questions rather than presenting mirror-image arguments on the same issue. While both motions sought summary judgment in the respective parties’ favor, they did so based on fundamentally different theories requiring separate factual and legal analysis. This divergence distinguished the situation from cases where both motions address the same question—for example, where both sides move for summary judgment on whether a contract was breached, presenting competing evidence and arguments on the identical legal issue.

The cross-movant apparently argued that despite the differences, the issues were sufficiently related to warrant application of the “nearly identical” exception. Perhaps the cross-movant contended that because both motions arose from the same accident and addressed elements necessary for ultimate liability determination, they were intertwined enough to justify excusing the untimeliness. This argument sought to characterize the issues broadly enough to bring them within the exception’s scope.

The trial court rejected this argument and declined to consider the untimely cross-motion. On appeal, the First Department affirmed, holding that the issues addressed in the respective motions were not nearly identical or sufficiently intertwined to warrant excusing the untimeliness under the exception.

“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.

Legal Significance: Strict Construction of the Nearly Identical Exception

The First Department’s decision establishes that the “nearly identical” exception to CPLR 3212(a)‘s 120-day rule requires genuine substantive similarity between the legal issues addressed in timely main motions and untimely cross-motions. The court’s determination that liability and serious injury issues are not sufficiently intertwined reflects a narrow construction of the exception that prioritizes adherence to statutory deadlines over expansive opportunities for untimely motion practice.

This strict approach serves several important functions. First, it maintains the integrity of the 120-day deadline by preventing parties from exploiting any tenuous connection between issues to bootstrap untimely motions onto timely ones. If courts permitted cross-motions on merely related but legally distinct issues, the exception would swallow the rule, effectively eliminating the deadline for any party facing an opponent’s timely motion. Second, it protects adverse parties and the court system from the burden of addressing entirely new legal questions raised after deadlines have expired.

Third, the ruling reflects a policy judgment that different legal issues—even those arising from the same factual transaction—require independent analysis warranting separate motion deadlines. A motion challenging serious injury involves medical evidence and expert testimony, while a motion challenging liability involves accident reconstruction and negligence principles. Though both arise from the same accident, they demand distinct expertise, evidence, and legal analysis—justifying treatment as separate issues subject to independent timing requirements.

Practical Implications: Strategic Motion Practice and Deadline Compliance

For practitioners, this decision underscores the critical importance of calendaring and complying with the 120-day summary judgment deadline. Parties should not assume they can file late cross-motions simply because opponents filed timely motions on related issues. The safest course involves making any contemplated summary judgment motion within the 120-day window, ensuring compliance regardless of whether exceptions might apply.

When parties face strategic choices about whether to move for summary judgment, the deadline pressure created by CPLR 3212(a) may force premature motions before discovery is complete. However, the alternative—waiting and risking preclusion from summary judgment altogether—often presents greater risks. Parties should begin evaluating summary judgment prospects early in litigation and prepare motion papers well before the deadline.

For parties facing timely motions from opponents and considering cross-motions, careful analysis of whether the issues are truly “nearly identical” is essential before relying on the exception to excuse untimeliness. The analysis should focus narrowly on whether the specific legal questions raised require identical or nearly identical evidence and legal analysis.

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