3212(a) outstanding discovery was not sufficient to warrant extention to make late SJ

CPLR 3212(a)

Courtview Owners Corp. v Courtview Holding B.V., 2014 NY Slip Op 00322 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Further, the Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment, and the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, as the parties failed to demonstrate good cause for making their respective motion and cross motion more than 60 days after the filing of the note of issue, as required by a preliminary conference order (see Rivera v New York Presbyt. Hosp., 57 AD3d 755; Jackson v Jamaica First Parking, LLC, 49 AD3d 501, 501; Coty v County of Clinton, 42 AD3d 612, 614). While significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances, constitute good cause for a delay in making a motion for summary judgment (see Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 129; Kung v Zheng, 73 AD3d 862, 863), contrary to the defendants' contention, the discovery outstanding at the time the note of issue was filed was not essential to their cross motion (see Avezbakiyev v City of New York, 104 AD3d 888, 888-889; Greenpoint Props., Inc. v Carter, 82 AD3d 1157, 1158).

Emphasis is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s