Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing procedural 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.
Understanding the relationship between different types of motions in civil litigation can be crucial for both attorneys and litigants. In New York courts, parties often file multiple motions throughout the course of a case, including motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. A common misconception is that a court’s ruling on one type of motion automatically determines the outcome of subsequent motions. However, as demonstrated in a recent First Department decision, this assumption can lead to strategic errors.
The law of the case doctrine typically prevents courts from reconsidering issues that have already been decided in the same litigation. This doctrine promotes judicial efficiency and prevents parties from repeatedly relitigating settled matters. However, the doctrine has important limitations, particularly when different types of motions are involved. A motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, while a motion for summary judgment examines whether there are genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Alvarado v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 03890 (1st Dept. 2017)
“As plaintiff now concedes, this Court’s decision on a prior appeal, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss (see Alvarado v City of New York, 60 AD3d 427 ), is not dispositive of the instant motion, as “he law of the case doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, a summary judgment motion follows a motion to dismiss’” (191 Chrystie LLC v Ledoux, 82 AD3d 681, 682 ).”
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.
Another lesson that absent a 3212(g) order, a prior order from a prior application has no effect.
Key Takeaway
The denial of a motion to dismiss does not preclude a defendant from later seeking summary judgment on the same issues. Courts evaluate these motions using different standards and at different stages of litigation. The law of the case doctrine does not apply when a summary judgment motion follows a motion to dismiss, allowing parties to present factual evidence that was not available during the motion to dismiss phase. This distinction is essential for effective litigation strategy and case management.
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 2,353 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
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
187 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
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
Defective notarization
Clarke v Scottsdale: a curable conformity omission differed from a defective notarial attestation. The insurer's motion remained denied.
Nov 16, 2014
CPLR § 2214 Motion Papers and Notice: The New York Practitioner's Guide
CPLR 2214 practitioner's guide: the 8/2 and 16/7/1 notice schedules, the good-cause gate of 2214(c), and when New York courts accept or reject late motion papers.
Apr 28, 2013
The trap called 2106
High Quality Medical applied the old CPLR 2106 rule, but also found an inadequate IME rebuttal. Learn what changed and why the evidence still matters.
Nov 14, 2010
Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant's Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?
Learn about collateral estoppel and privity in NY no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of State Farm v.
Nov 1, 2009Was 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 procedural 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.
