The Court of Appeals in its recent decision Brill v. City of New York sends a warning to practioners to follow the clear language of CPLR 3212(a). Its holding is a strict adherence to the statute’s language. That is, the Court held a movant must move for summary judgment no sooner than 30 days after the note of issue is filed but no longer than 120 days after such filing, unless the court grants leave for “good cause” shown for the delay. The Court held that the City of New York’s failure to provide any excuse for its motion beyond the time limitation — even though the motion had merit — did not constitute good cause.

The Court appears to have granted leave here to send a clear message, even though the effects of the holding, in practice, seem like an exercise in futility — Judge G. Smith’s main reason for his dissent. However, the decision not only clarifies application of CPLR 3212(a), it breathed life into the plaintiff’s case because the decision will perhaps encourage a settlement between the parties to avoid the costs of litigating the case (even though the prior notice issue is clearly against the plaintiff).