CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment
(a) Time; kind of action
Podlaski v Long Is. Paneling Ctr. of Centereach, Inc., 58 AD3d 825 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
Inasmuch as ARG's cross motion for summary judgment was made more than 120 days after
the note of issue was filed, it was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). Since no
good cause was articulated by ARG for its late filing, its cross motion for summary judgment
was properly denied as untimely (id.; see Lofstad v S & R Fisheries, Inc., 45 AD3d 739, 743 [2007]; Jones v Ricciardelli, 40 AD3d 936
[2007]). Moreover, since the grounds upon which ARG premised its cross motion were not
nearly identical to those upon which Long Island Paneling relied in connection with its motion
(see Bickelman v Herrill Bowling
Corp., 49 AD3d 578, 580 [2008]; cf. Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591-592 [2007]), there is no
basis upon which we may impute good cause for ARG's delay in submitting its cross motion.
I ran across this case while looking for something else.
The bold is mine.
bruteforcelawyer.com 