New York Court of Appeals, 2004

Miceli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 21, 2004 · Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur in Memorandum Judge G.B. Smith Concurs on Constraint Of

819 N.E.2d 995; 3 N.Y.3d 725; 786 N.Y.S.2d 379; 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 2444 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

127 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Farkas v. Farkas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Buckner v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 2005)
Bennett v. St. John's Home (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Bennett v. St. John's Home (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Perini Corp. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Balcerzak v. DNA Contracting, LLC (New York Supreme Court 2005)
BENNETT, AINSWORTH M. v. ST. JOHN'S HOME (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Cadichon v. Facelle (N.Y. 2011)
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Citimed Surgery Ctr., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y. (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Exceptional Medical Care, P.C. v. Fiduciary Insurance (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Citibank, N.A. v. Murillo (New York Supreme Court 2011)
Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hospital (N.Y. 2010)
Ford v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Fusion Funding v. All Pro Preparation, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Ontario County 2025)
Steward v. 221 W. 26th St. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Frascino v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
Souffrant v. M&K Real Estate Assoc., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Dunn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Cord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Panfilow v. 66 E. 83rd St. Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Nunez v. 198 St. Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2022)
Weston-Pinillos v. Seaview Manor, LLC (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Drawhorn v. Tchouza (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Baquero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment denied.

Barely five months ago, in Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), this Court reversed an award of summary judgment for defendant, without considering its merit, on the ground that the motion, made more than 120 days after note of issue was filed, failed to comply with the statutory requirement that “good cause” be shown for the late filing. We determined that, if the merit of the motion itself constituted good cause, the statutory deadline would be circumvented and the practice of delaying such motions until the eve of trial encouraged. As the Legislature clearly specified, summary judgment motions should be timely made, or good cause shown.

As we made clear in Brill, and underscore here, statutory time frames—like court-ordered time frames (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999])—are not options, they are requirements, to be taken seriously by the parties. Too many pages of the *727 Reports, and hours of the courts, are taken up with deadlines that are simply ignored.

Plaintiff does not dispute that her motion for summary judgment was made more than 120 days after note of issue was filed, and offers no excuse for her failure to comply with CPLR 3212 (a), arguing only that her motion is meritorious. This was precisely defendant’s position before us in Brill. To countenance plaintiff’s position here would require us to overturn our own recent precedent. This we refuse to do, and we therefore reverse the order of the Appellate Division awarding summary judgment to plaintiff, without considering the merit of the motion.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum; Judge G.B. Smith concurs on constraint of Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

Order reversed, etc.

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