CPLR § 104 Construction
Tu v Loan Pricing Corp., 2008 NY Slip Op 51945(U) (Supreme Court, New York County)
their papers, each side raises the issue of the defects that exist in
the others motion papers. Plaintiff claims that the court should deny
defendants motion on its face since they failed to submit copies of all
the pleadings in their original submission in violation of CPLR §
3212(b). Plaintiff’s Memorandum at p. 11. Defendants claim that the
plaintiff violated this court’s rules by going over the allocated page
limit in its memorandum of law in opposition to the motion. Defendants
Reply Memorandum at p. 29. The court is mindful of these procedural
defects but will use its inherent power to disregard them in the
interests of justice and decide the motion on its merits. See CLPR 104.
Give me a couple of minutes (hours probably–I have to put a crib together) to explain.
And a couple of hours (16 or so) later, I haven’t put anything together, however, I can begin to explain:
For any attorney who spends time in one of the various New York courts, that attorney has seen motions upon motions denied for failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of the CPLR. And, of course, motions that were granted as a result of a party’s failure to do same. It is indeed a rare event when a Judge is willing to overlook a technical deficiency in order to get to the merits of the motion.