Practitioners often grumble about the New York Court of Appeals' holding in Brill v. City of New York — i.e., the outside time limit for a summary judgment motion is 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, unless good cause is shown for the delay. During the first Session of the Court's new Term, the Court will revisit what constitutes "good cause" under CPLR 3212.
The Court will hear oral arguments in Crawford v. Liz Claiborne, Inc. during its September Term. In Crawford, the parties entered into a scheduling order in New York County. The outside deadline to file summary judgment motions was pursuant to the local rules. The local rules provide that movants have an outside deadline of 60 days after the filing of the note of issue, rather than the 120-day deadline.
The defendant unfortunately overlooked the local rules and, upon realizing the oversight, served and filed its summary judgment motion a few days after the 60-day deadline. The trial court considered the motion, even though the motion was beyond the 60-day deadline, and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the Decision and Order, holding that an oversight regarding the court rules did not constitute "good cause" under Brill and CPLR 3212. Justice Tom and Williams dissented.
The Court of Appeals will address whether this type of oversight constitutes "good cause." New York Civil Law will keep you apprised of the Court's holding, which should be handed down in October.
New York Civil Law 