Key Takeaway
New York courts may allow subsequent summary judgment motions when substantively valid and serving justice, despite general discouragement of multiple motions.
Understanding Subsequent Summary Judgment Motions in New York Courts
New York’s civil procedure generally discourages multiple summary judgment motions within the same case. The rationale is straightforward: repeated motions can burden court resources and delay case resolution. However, the Second Department’s decision in Valley National Bank v INI Holding, LLC demonstrates that courts retain discretion to entertain subsequent motions under specific circumstances.
Summary judgment motions are governed by strict procedural requirements, including timing restrictions under CPLR 3212(a). While courts typically expect parties to present their strongest arguments in their initial motion, situations arise where a subsequent motion may be warranted.
The key factors courts consider include whether the subsequent motion is based on newly discovered evidence, presents substantially different legal arguments, or serves the broader interests of judicial efficiency. Courts must balance the general policy against multiple motions with the fundamental goal of achieving just outcomes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Valley Natl. Bank v INI Holding, LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 03830 (2d Dept. 2012)
“Although multiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause, a subsequent summary judgment motion may be properly entertained when it is substantively valid and when the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice while eliminating an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts”
Key Takeaway
Courts maintain flexibility to allow subsequent summary judgment motions when they serve justice and judicial efficiency. While multiple motions are generally discouraged, practitioners should understand that properly timed and substantively valid motions may be entertained when they advance case resolution rather than create unnecessary delays.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, there may have been amendments to CPLR 3212 affecting summary judgment motion procedures, including potential changes to timing requirements, motion practice standards, or court discretion guidelines regarding subsequent motions. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent appellate decisions interpreting multiple motion standards before relying on the procedural framework discussed in this analysis.
