Key Takeaway
Court ruling shows how defendants can avoid CPLR's 120-day summary judgment rule when motion involves purely legal questions rather than factual disputes.
Active Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins., 2018 NY Slip Op 50201(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)
“Initially, we note that, although defendant’s motion was denominated as one to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), the motion was made after issue had been joined (see generally CPLR 3211 ). “Whether or not issue has been joined, the court, after adequate notice to the parties, may treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment” (CPLR 3211 ). While the Civil Court never notified the parties that it was treating the motion as one for summary judgment, an exception to the notice requirement is applicable, as defendant’s motion exclusively involved “a purely legal question rather than any issues of fact” (Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506, 508 ; Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 320 ; Renelique v State-Wide Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 137, 2016 NY Slip Op 50095 ). Consequently, it was proper for the Civil Court, in effect, to treat defendant’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment “without first giving notice of its intention to do so” (Four Seasons Hotels, 127 AD2d at 320).”
Upon finding the motion properly brought and timely, judgment on the unpleaded affirmative defense was granted.
Related Articles
- Supplemental affirmation on declaratory judgment cases and res judicata dismissal
- Res judicata effect when unpleaded affirmative defense is sufficient
- Failure to include order/judgment with declaration is fatal
- A declaration of non-coverage is res judicata to the specific date of the accident
- Denial of Claims
