Practice point: Here, it was uncontroverted that defendant's motion was not timely under the
schedule set by the preliminary conference order. The Appellate Division determined that it
does not matter whether a motion for summary judgment has been made more
than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue or after the
expiration of a shorter time limit set by a court order or stipulation.
Whatever the source of the deadline with which a party fails to comply,
the lateness may not be excused without a showing of good cause within
the meaning of CPLR 3212(a), a showing of something more than mere law
office failure. Defendant's excuse that its counsel inadvertently overlook the ordered date is a perfunctory claim of law office failure, and the motion was denied.
Student note: The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that court-ordered time
frames are requirements to be taken seriously by the parties. See, e.g., Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d 74 (2010).
Case: Quinones v. Joan & Sanford I. Weill Med. Coll., NY Slip Op 00882 (1st Dept. 2014).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Failure to negotiate in good faith and exemplary damages.
