Landaverde v Joseph
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil litigation—timeliness of summary judgment motions under New York CPLR 3212(a).
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them despite acknowledging the motion was untimely and unsupported by good cause.
The grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendants-respondents Shamraiz Akhtar and Varda S. Ulhag.
Under CPLR 3212(a) [provides that a motion for summary judgment shall be made no later than the date set by the court, or if no date is set, no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown], a motion made nearly 18 months late without a satisfactory explanation must be denied without reaching the merits. A timely motion in a related action does not constitute good cause (Brill v City of New York; Jones v Ricciardelli).
Background
Plaintiff Olga D. Landaverde sued for personal injuries from a three-vehicle collision. A preliminary conference order (August 21, 2018) set the CPLR 3212(a) 120-day post–note-of-issue deadline for summary judgment motions. The note of issue was filed on October 7, 2019, making the deadline early February 2020. Defendants Shamraiz Akhtar and Varda S. Ulhag moved for summary judgment on July 28, 2021—almost a year and a half late. The Supreme Court acknowledged the untimeliness and lack of good cause but granted the motion, noting an “identical” motion had been granted in a related case. The separate appeal by defendants Ronald Joseph and All Transit, LLC, was deemed dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(a).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to Akhtar and Ulhag dismissing the complaint against them, notwithstanding the concededly untimely motion and the absence of any showing of good cause, based on the existence of an identical motion granted in a related action.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed insofar as appealed by the plaintiff. The Appellate Division held the motion was made approximately 18 months after the CPLR 3212(a) deadline and no good cause was shown. A timely motion in a separate, related action cannot supply good cause in this action. Accordingly, the branch of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Akhtar and Ulhag should have been denied without reaching the merits. Costs awarded.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms the strict Brill rule that courts must deny untimely summary judgment motions absent a satisfactory explanation for the delay; merits are irrelevant without good cause. Efforts to bootstrap timeliness from related litigation are insufficient.
In New York, an untimely summary judgment motion must be denied without consideration of the merits unless the movant demonstrates good cause for the delay; an “identical” motion in a related case does not supply good cause.