Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing summary judgment issues coverage, with 43 published articles analyzing summary judgment issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Procedural motions in civil litigation serve specific purposes and must be used appropriately. The distinction between a motion in limine and a motion for summary judgment is critical, as each has different requirements, timing constraints, and legal standards. When courts confuse these procedural vehicles, it can lead to reversible error.
A motion in limine is typically used to exclude certain evidence or testimony before trial, while a motion for summary judgment seeks to dispose of claims entirely based on the lack of genuine issues of material fact. The timing rules and procedural requirements for each motion are distinct and cannot be interchanged.
The First Department’s decision in Carrasquillo v New York City Dept. of Education demonstrates how courts must carefully distinguish between these different types of motions and apply the appropriate legal standards to each.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Carrasquillo v New York City Dept. of Educ., (DOE), 2013 NY Slip Op 01626 (1st Dept. 2013)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“Plaintiffs’ original notice of claim did not allege that the infant plaintiff slipped on water on the gym floor. It alleged merely that respondents were “negligent in the premises.” This allegation failed to provide respondents with enough information to enable them to investigate the premises liability claim (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358 ). Plaintiffs may not rely on the complaint (served 13 months after the accident), the bill of particulars (served almost two years after the accident), or the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony (given almost one year after the accident) to alert respondents to their theory of a failure to discover and remedy a wet floor (see Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 ).
The motion court improperly treated the motion in limine to dismiss the negligent supervision claim as a motion for summary judgment (see Downtown Art Co. v Zimmerman, 232 AD2d 270 ; Brewi-Bijoux v City of New York, 73 AD3d 1112 ).”
Key Takeaway
Courts cannot treat motions in limine as summary judgment motions because they serve different purposes and have distinct procedural requirements. This distinction is crucial for proper case management and ensuring that the appropriate legal standards are applied to each type of motion.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,600 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Summary Judgment Practice in New York
Summary judgment under CPLR 3212 is often the decisive motion in no-fault and personal injury litigation. The movant must establish a prima facie case through admissible evidence, and the opponent must then raise a triable issue of fact. The timing of motions, the sufficiency of evidence, and the court's discretion in evaluating submissions are all heavily litigated. These articles provide detailed analysis of summary judgment standards and the strategic considerations that determine outcomes.
43 published articles in Summary Judgment Issues
Keep Reading
More Summary Judgment Issues Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
Metro Psychological separates timely service from sufficient proof. Check the trial notice, court deadline, mailing date and good cause for delay.
Oct 22, 2019
The destruction of peer hearsay: It is not hearsay – and much more
Examining peer hearsay exceptions in NY no-fault cases, medical record admissibility, and verification procedures in Urban Radiology v Tri-State Consumer.
Jun 10, 2010
Understanding CPLR 3212(g): When Summary Judgment Relief Becomes Improper
B.Y. rejected a stand-alone attempt to establish a prima facie case. Distinguish partial judgment, facts fixed for trial and unavailable discovery.
Feb 6, 2010
3211(b) motion not subject to 3212(a) time limitations
Zarnoch distinguishes CPLR 3211(b) from summary-judgment timing. The Fourth Department still upheld denial because the defense was not disproved.
Mar 25, 2017
The 60-day rule that was never published in the law journal
Court applies unpublished 60-day summary judgment rule in Civil Court case, raising procedural questions about timing limits and Second Department review needed.
Apr 2, 2014Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a summary judgment issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
