Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Greenpoint Properties, Inc. v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 29, 2011

82 A.D.3d 1157; 919 N.Y.2d 370

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Navarro v. Damac Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Bargil Assoc., LLC v. Crites (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Courtview Owners Corp. v. Courtview Holding B.V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Courtview Owners Corp. v. Courtview Holding B.V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Planas v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Planas v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Avezbakiyev v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Avezbakiyev v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Bivona v. Bob's Discount Furniture of NY, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court erred by, in effect, granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to serve and file a late motion for summary judgment, since the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for not timely serving the motion as required by CPLR 3212 (a) (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). “Significant outstanding discovery may, in certain *1158circumstances, constitute good cause for the delay in making a motion for summary judgment” (Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Razy Assoc., 37 AD3d 702, 703 [2007]; see Grochowski v Ben Rubins, LLC, 81 AD3d 589 [2011]; Kung v Zheng, 73 AD3d 862, 863 [2010]; Richardson v JAL Diversified Mgt., 73 AD3d 1012, 1012-1013 [2010]; McArdle v 123 Jackpot, Inc., 51 AD3d 743, 745 [2008]; Sclafani v Washington Mut., 36 AD3d 682, 682 [2007]). Here, however, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the discovery outstanding at the time the note of issue was filed was not essential to his motion (see Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Razy Assoc., 37 AD3d at 703). In the absence of a showing of good cause for the delay in filing a motion for summary judgment, “the court has no discretion to entertain even a meritorious, nonprejudicial motion for summary judgment” (John P. Krupski & Bros., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Southold, 54 AD3d 899, 901 [2008]; see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d at 652). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to serve and file a late motion for summary judgment, and otherwise denied the motion as academic.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Florio, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.