N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212

A party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Mantila v. Luca · filed 2002-10-21(b)

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to present sufficient evidence to eliminate material factual issues.

Howell v. Karl Koch Erecting Corp. · filed 2002-07-11

Pursuant to CPLR 3212, on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of giving sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Gutowski v. Louie · filed 2002-11-12(b)

To obtain summary judgment, a party must show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Under CPLR 3212, competent evidence supporting a summary judgment motion warrants judgment when the opposing party submits no contrary evidence.

Hartford Underwriters Insurance v. American International Group, Inc. · filed 2002-12-05

In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them and to declare that neither was obligated to defend and indemnify BFM (see CPLR 3212).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Robison v. Sweeney · filed 2003-01-16(b)

In order to grant summary judgment, a court must find that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party has demonstrated that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group, 88 NY2d 904, 906; Cafferty v Thompson, 223 AD2d 99, 101, lv denied 88 NY2d 815). Based upon our review of the record, we find that plaintiffs have not sustained their burden since the record reveals questions of fact as to the existence of an enforceable agreement demonstrating “ ‘a meeting of the minds’ necessary for formation of a contract” (Berlinger v Lisi, 288 AD2d 523, 524; see Realty Investors of USA v Bhaidaswala, 254 AD2d 603, 604), and we therefore reverse.

Section 3212(a) gives a party 120 days after the note of issue is filed to move for summary judgment when the court sets no date; a motion filed on the next business day is timely when that deadline falls on a Saturday.

Rodriguez v. Board of Education · filed 2003-01-27(a)

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was timely. CPLR 3212 (a) provides that if no date is set by the court, a motion for summary judgment shall be made no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown. Here, the note of issue was filed July 6, 2001. Thus, the 120 days would run on November 3, 2001. However, as correctly pointed out by the defendants, November 3, 2001, was a Saturday. The defendants’ summary judgment motion was filed on Monday, November 5, 2001, the next succeeding business day.

CPLR 3212 permits denial of summary judgment when the opposing party raises a triable issue of fact and shows a need for further discovery.

Dagan v. Rothstein · filed 2003-02-24(b), (f)

After the plaintiffs made out their prima facie case for summary judgment on the 11th cause of action, the respondents raised a triable issue of fact and demonstrated their need for further discovery from the plaintiffs. Accordingly, denial of the plaintiffs’ motion was proper (see CPLR 3212 [b], [f]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Morris v Hochman, 296 AD2d 481 [2002]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is warranted when the defendant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Johnson v. Huff Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2003-03-03(b)

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]; Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 NY2d 290, 299 [1978]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Loiacono v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 270 AD2d 464 [2000]).

When parties cross-move for summary judgment and submit extensive proof, a court may apply summary judgment analysis even though another party moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211.

Franzone v. Quinn · filed 2003-03-06

Initially, we find no merit in plaintiffs contention that Supreme Court improperly applied the analysis for a summary judgment motion to a situation where a motion to dismiss had been made by the County. Although the County’s motion — the first of a series of motions by the parties — sought dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211, it is readily apparent from the cross motions for summary judgment by Quinn and plaintiff, as well as the extensive proof submitted, that the parties “laid bare their proof’ and “charted the summary judgment course” (Singer v Boychuk, 194 AD2d 1049, 1051 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 657 [1993]; see Kavoukian v Kaletta, 294 AD2d 646, 647 [2002]; Phillips v Sollami, 220 AD2d 946, 947 [1995]).

A summary judgment movant must present sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing, and the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Artistic Landscaping, Inc. v. Board of Assessors · filed 2003-03-31(b)

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Although the subject property is currently being used exclusively for religious purposes, the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence which established prima facie that there was no outward or affirmative act changing the use of the agricultural land (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 563).

CPLR 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the moving party establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Chadwick v. Sabin · filed 2003-04-14(b)

The defendant landlords made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through submission of evidence demonstrating that the premises was not a multiple dwelling and that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of a lead-based paint condition on the premises (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Multiple Dwelling Law § 4 [1], [7], [15]; Vazquez v Prevosto, 300 AD2d 299 [2002]). The plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9 [2001]; Batista v Mohabir, supra).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then raise a triable issue of fact.

De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc.v. Mannetti Associates, Ltd. · filed 2003-05-05(b)

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]). In response, the defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to their defenses and counterclaims (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A court may set a summary judgment filing deadline measured from the completion of discovery, and a motion filed before discovery is complete is not untimely under that deadline.

Kenner v. Maxx · filed 2003-05-19(a)

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon a finding that it was untimely pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a). The Supreme Court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for leave to renew its motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion, in effect, for leave to renew. The defendant submitted evidence that the Supreme Court had issued a previous order which stated that the defendant had until 120 days after the completion of discovery to file a motion for summary judgment, and presented evidence that discovery was not completed because, inter alia, the plaintiff had failed to appear for her independent medical examination.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment with admissible evidence; the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

DiStefano v. Saatchi · filed 2003-09-22(b)

Saatchi and Melagrano submitted sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claim for adverse possession against them (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Rowland v Crystal Bay Constr., 301 AD2d 585 [2003]). The plaintiffs failed to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the usual cultivation and improvement of the disputed parcel for the requisite statutory period (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Manhattan School of Music v Solow, supra).

Section 3212's summary judgment standard does not apply to a proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5).

O'Halloran v. City of New York · filed 2003-09-25

The standard used to decide a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 does not apply to this proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opponent raises no triable issue of fact.

Arrowsmith v. City of Rochester · filed 2003-10-02(b)

Defendant established as a matter of law that none of the nine causes of action in the complaint has merit, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant must establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the opponent must show a factual issue requiring trial.

Carter-Clark v. Random House, Inc. · filed 2003-10-02(b)

A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate his, her, or its entitlement thereto as a matter of law, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]; Jee v New York Post Co., 260 AD2d 215 [1st Dept 1999]).

Section 3212(a) requires a summary judgment motion within 120 days after the filing of a note of issue unless the court grants leave for good cause shown.

Dunham v. City of New York · filed 2003-11-03(a)

CPLR 3212 (a) requires that a motion for summary judgment be made within 120 days after the filing of a note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown. Here, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment 16 months after the deadline, and without any explanation for the delay.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit admissible evidence sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

SRM Card Shop, Inc. v. 1740 Broadway Associates · filed 2003-12-04(b)

To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, a movant must establish its claim or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in its favor (CPLR 3212 [b]), and it must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

CPLR 3212(a) governs the timing of summary judgment motions, and entertaining a belated motion can be an improper exercise of discretion.

Mosheyev v. Pilevsky · filed 2004-01-20(a)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant’s belated motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [a]; cf. Lee v City of New York, 307 AD2d 256 [2003]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the submitted proof establishes a claim as a matter of law.

Banco Popular North America v. Victory Taxi Management, Inc. · filed 2004-02-19(b)

A party utilizing this accelerated judgment procedure prevails “if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action . . . shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” for the plaintiff (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(a) sets a 120-day deadline after the note of issue for summary judgment motions, subject to leave of court for good cause.

Riddick v. City of New York · filed 2004-02-24(a)

We also reject plaintiffs argument that the order denying the City summary judgment should be affirmed because the motion was untimely. CPLR 3212 (a) provides that a party must move for summary judgment no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, “except with leave of court on good cause shown.”

Section 3212(b) requires summary judgment when the papers and proof establish a party’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Rouse v. Winthrop · filed 2004-04-02(b)

CPLR 3212 (b) states, " The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter or law in directing judgment in favor of any party." Upon all of the papers and proof submitted, defendants Louis Marett, Ned Neuberger, and Bob Jackson, have established that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant that establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law is entitled to summary judgment when the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Peloso v. County of Putnam · filed 2004-04-05(b)

The County demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not receive prior written notice of unsafe icing conditions on the subject parking lot as required by its Local Law No. 6 (1983) of County of Putnam (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Cenname v Town of Smithtown, 303 AD2d 351 [2003]). In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

A two-day delay in moving for summary judgment after the note of issue does not justify denial as untimely when the opposing party does not object and suffers no prejudice.

Fernandez v. Mark Andy, Inc. · filed 2004-05-03(a)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment solely on the ground that it was untimely pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a), having been filed 122 days after the plaintiff filed his note of issue (see Krash v Bishop-Sanzari, J.V., 309 AD2d 788 [2003]; Jerry v New York City Hous. Auth., 285 AD2d 531 [2001]). In light of the de minimis delay of two days, the plaintiffs failure to object to the motion as untimely, and the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have decided the motion on the merits (see Burns v Gonzalez, 307 AD2d 863 [2003]; Medina v Barbara, 279 AD2d 615 [2001]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish that there is no defense to the claim or that the claim or defense has no merit.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison v. Koons · filed 2004-05-14(b)

It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish that “there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit” (CPLR 3212 [b]) sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law to direct judgment in his or her favor.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Treeline Garden City Plaza v. UBS Warburg Real Estate Invs. · filed 2004-05-24

Summary judgment is warranted where there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when no material issue of fact remains and conclusory opposition unsupported by evidence provides no basis to deny the motion.

Cohanim v. Sachar · filed 2004-05-25

Thus, there are no material or triable issues of fact or law presented. ... Plaintiffs' opposition papers are conclusory, without documentary or evidentiary proof, and set forth no basis in fact or law upon which the court could deny defendants' motion. ... Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice the summons and complaint herein must be granted pursuant to CPLR §3211 ( a ) ( 5 ) and CPLR §3212.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment only when no material factual issue remains and the evidence entitles the movant to judgment as a matter of law.

Ramrup v. 131 Starr Realty Corp. · filed 2004-05-25(b)

Summary judgment shall be granted only when there are no issues of material fact and the evidence requires the court to direct judgment in favor of the movant as a matter of law.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish a prima facie case; the opposing party must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Ortiz v. Smith · filed 2004-06-01(b)

The evidence submitted by the defendants established a prima facie case that the accident was not proximately caused by any negligence on their part (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opponent must raise a triable issue of fact.

Sedita v. City of New York · filed 2004-06-01(b)

In this case, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, supra; Boen v Ski Plattekill, 282 AD2d 563 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Section 3212(f) permits postponing summary judgment for discovery when the opponent shows that essential facts may exist but cannot yet be stated and that needed facts are within another party’s exclusive knowledge.

Avraham v. Allied Realty Corp. · filed 2004-06-14(f)

In any event, plaintiffs “failed to show that ‘facts essential to justify opposition may exist but [could not] then be stated’ (CPLR 3212 [f]) and that [plaintiffs] require[ ] the discovery of facts that are within the exclusive knowledge of another party” (Wittkopp v ADF Constr. Corp., 254 AD2d 775, 776 [1998]; see Franklin v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 291 AD2d 854 [2002]; Santangelo v Fluor Constructors Intl., 266 AD2d 893, 894 [1999]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the evidence eliminates material issues of fact and establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Francis v. Bien-Aime · filed 2004-06-21(b)

Therefore, pursuant to CPLR § 3212 (b), defendant Akhtar is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and is dismissed from the case. The evidence tendered is sufficient to eliminate any material issues of fact with respect to defendant Akhtar in the instant action.

Section 3212 requires the court to give the pleading party every favorable inference when considering summary judgment; testimony from a temporary protection hearing did not justify judgment on the neglect petitions.

Matter of Emily R. · filed 2004-07-16

While the testimony adduced at the hearing resulted in this Court making a limited finding that a Temporary Order of Protection should not be issued, the same is not legally sufficient to grant a motion for summary judgment where, as stated above, allegations in the pleadings must be assumed to be true and liberally construed, giving the pleading party the benefit of every favorable inference.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Glen v. Murphy · filed 2004-08-09

On a motion for summary judgment the movant must establish his or her cause of action or defense sufficient to warrant a court directing judgment in its favor as a matter of law.

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is proper when the movant establishes its claim as a matter of law and the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Star City Sportswear, Inc. v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance of America · filed 2004-05-13(b)

Plaintiffs proof was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it fulfilled that requirement (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563 [1980]). Defendant, on the other hand, offered sufficient proof establishing plaintiffs material breach of the warranty clause as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

CPLR 3212(a) sets a 120-day deadline after the filing of a notice of trial for a summary judgment motion.

Santana v. City of New York · filed 2004-12-06(a)

In light of Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), decided four weeks after this motion was made, the branch of the motion seeking summary judgment must be denied as untimely. As forthrightly acknowledged by defendants (hereinafter the City) in their moving papers, the motion was made more than 120 days after plaintiff filed its notice of trial, and thus beyond the deadline established by CPLR 3212 (a) for such a motion.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when no material issue of fact requires a trial.

Auto Park, Inc. v. Bugdaycay · filed 2004-12-15

Pursuant to CPLR 3212, a grant of summary judgment is permissible in cases where there is clearly no material and triable issue of fact presented.

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment turns on whether the evidence before the court entitles the movant to judgment as a matter of law, the same standard used for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 · filed 2005-01-06(b)

Both on a motion for summary judgment and on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the standard for granting relief is whether, based on the evidence before the court, the movant is entitled to judgment “as a matter of law” (see CPLR 3212 [b]; 4404 [a]). Whether the determination is based on pretrial evidentiary submissions or on the evidence presented at trial, the legal standard is exactly the same.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the parties agree that no material facts are in dispute.

Hernandez v. Robles · filed 2005-02-04(b)

Since both sides agree that there are no material facts in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate.

Section 3212(a)’s 120-day period restarts when a new note of issue is filed under a restoration order; a late summary judgment motion requires good cause for the delay.

Slane v. Kalache · filed 2005-02-21(a)

In short, this court agrees with defendant Dr. Lent that the filing of a second note of issue pursuant to a restoration order constituted a new note of issue that restarted the 120-day period within which to move for summary judgment. The court, however, finds that defendants failed to timely move for summary judgment within the 120-day statutory period pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a). While this court is cognizant of the fact that each defendant’s dispositive motion for summary judgment may be meritorious, the court lacks the discretion to entertain any of the untimely motions inasmuch as none of the defendants has complied with the requirements of CPLR 3212 (a) of proffering a “good cause” showing for the delay in making the motion.

Section 3212(a) requires good cause before a court may consider a summary judgment motion filed after the applicable deadline.

First Union Auto Finance, Inc. v. Donat · filed 2005-03-07(a)

Since it is also uncontroverted by the plaintiff and Chevrolet that rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Trial Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County, provides that summary judgment motions must be made within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue, in this case, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a), the merits of the motion should not have been considered unless good cause was shown for the delay.

CPLR 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

James Miller Marine Services, Inc. v. MTW Check Cashing Corp. · filed 2005-03-07

The respondents made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

CPLR 3212(a) permits a party to move for summary judgment in a quo warranto action brought by the Attorney General.

People v. Delgado · filed 2005-03-14(a)

Contrary to Hockley’s contentions, by the express terms of CPLR 3212 (a), “[a]ny party may move for summary judgment in any action.” Hockley has failed to advance any cogent reasons why summary judgment should not be available in a quo warranto action commenced by the Attorney General pursuant to Executive Law § 63-b.

CPLR 3212(a) requires good cause for a summary judgment motion made after the 120-day limit.

Kaplan v. Rosiello · filed 2005-03-28(a)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as the motion was made well after the 120-day limit imposed by CPLR 3212 (a) and the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in making the motion (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

CPLR 3212(a) requires a satisfactory explanation for a summary judgment motion served more than 120 days after the note of issue is filed; without good cause, the court cannot consider the motion.

Thompson v. Leben Home for Adults · filed 2005-04-04(a)

The defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment should not have been considered in view of their failure to offer a satisfactory explanation for not serving it within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue as required by CPLR 3212 (a) (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). In the absence of such a “good cause” showing, the court has no discretion to entertain even a meritorious, nonprejudicial motion for summary judgment (id.).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to present evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and eliminating material factual issues.

Smouha v. Metropolitan Transit Authority · filed 2005-04-25

It is well established that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case.

Section 3212(a) requires a late summary judgment movant to explain delays that occur after the initial 120-day period.

Espejo v. Hiro Real Estate Co. · filed 2005-06-06(a)

Although the appellant demonstrated “good cause” (CPLR 3212 [a]) for its failure to move for summary judgment during the initial 120-day period that followed the filing of the note of issue, it failed to explain the extensive delay that occurred thereafter.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment only when the movant shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no material issue of fact.

Shmueli v. Corcoran Group · filed 2005-07-25

Summary judgment may only be granted if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact after the movant makes a prima facie showing.

Shelvin Plaza Associates, LLC v. Lew Leiberbaum Holdings Co. · filed 2005-05-23(b)

However, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the lease controlled and that LLHC was obligated thereunder to compensate the plaintiff for rental losses and expenses it incurred in reletting the premises. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra).

CPLR 3212 (a) requires good cause for an untimely summary judgment motion; a conclusory explanation for filing more than 13 months after the note of issue does not suffice.

Finegan v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. · filed 2005-10-03(a)

The conclusory and unsatisfactory explanation offered by the defendant Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (hereinafter Clear Channel), for making a motion for summary judgment more than 13 months after the note of issue was filed did not constitute “good cause,” as required under CPLR 3212 (a) (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Dettmann v Page, 18 AD3d 422 [2005]).

Section 3212(f) permits a court to deny summary judgment as premature when discovery has not begun and the allegations warrant further development.

Tyme v. City of New York · filed 2005-10-11(f)

Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly determined that granting summary judgment before the beginning of discovery would have been premature given the nature of the allegations made in the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Sportiello v City of New York, 6 AD3d 421, 422 [2004]).

CPLR 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when significant discovery remains incomplete.

Afzal v. Board of Fire Commissioners of Bellmore Fire District · filed 2005-11-21(f)

As significant discovery, including the deposition of the plaintiff, had not been completed, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendant Board of Fire Commissioners of ... the Bellmore Fire District (see Groves v Land’s End Hous. Co., 80 NY2d 978 [1992]; Rengifo v City of New York, 7 AD3d 773 [2004]; CPLR 3212 [f]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party seeking summary judgment must establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Tarone v. Tarone · filed 2006-01-31(b)

Madeleine Tarone established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

CPLR 3212(f) requires a party seeking more discovery before summary judgment to show that its lack of critical facts is unavoidable and that it made reasonable efforts to obtain them.

Sasson v. Setina Manufacturing Co. · filed 2006-02-28(f)

Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ contention that summary judgment was premature because discovery had not occurred is without merit. “A party who claims ignorance of critical facts to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [f]) must first demonstrate that the ignorance is unavoidable and that reasonable attempts were made to discover the facts which would give rise to a triable issue” (Cruz v Otis El. Co., 238 AD2d 540 [1997]). Here, the plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence as to why they had not sought any records or information from the NYPD relative to the manufacturer of the allegedly defective partition in the fours years since the occurrence (see Feis v A.S.D. Metal & Mach. Shop, 234 AD2d 504 [1996]; Cruz v Otis El. Co., supra).

Section 3212(a) requires good cause to extend the time to move for summary judgment.

Scherrer v. Time Equities, Inc. · filed 2006-03-02(a)

The motion for an extension of time to file for summary judgment was properly denied since defendants did not demonstrate “good cause” for failing to comply with CPLR 3212 (a) (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

CPLR 3212(a) requires a summary judgment motion filed after the applicable deadline to be supported by good cause for the delay.

Levy v. Deer Trans. Corp. · filed 2006-03-14(a)

Both the motion and the cross motion were untimely, having been made more than the prescribed time for this IAS Part after the filing of plaintiffs note of issue, and without a showing of good cause for the delay (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Colon v City of New York, 15 AD3d 173 [2005]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show through competent evidence that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Spiratos v. County of Chenango · filed 2006-04-06(b)

A motion for summary judgment will be granted where the movant demonstrates, by competent evidence, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Ware v Baxter Health Care Corp., 25 AD3d 863, 864 [2006]; Haggray v Malek, 21 AD3d 683, 684 [2005]).

An order granting a new trial does not extend the time to move for summary judgment under section 3212(a).

Jeune v. O.T. Trans Mix Corp. · filed 2006-05-09(a)

This Court’s decision and order dated August 25, 2003 did not constitute an extension of the time in which to make a motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [a]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Miranco Contracting, Inc. v. Perel · filed 2006-05-23(b)

The defendants Allan Perel and Lillian H. Associates (hereinafter the respondents) sustained their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action based on breach of contract (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), ... In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of a contract (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625 [1985]).

Section 3212(a) requires good cause to entertain a summary judgment motion made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed.

Giannattasio v. Kang · filed 2006-06-06(a)

The Supreme Court improperly entertained the defendants’ oral motions for summary judgment made on July 5, 2005, the day the trial in this matter was to begin. The notes of issue in this matter were filed more than 120 days prior thereto, on September 22, 2003. Since the record is devoid of any showing as to good cause for entertaining the motions on July 5, 2005, they should have been denied (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473 [2005]; Thompson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 10 AD3d 650 [2004]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to make an initial showing that the claims lack merit; the opposing party must then show a triable issue of fact.

Ginther v. Ginther · filed 2006-06-09(b)

Defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the claims have no merit (see CPLR 3212 [To]) and, “because no facts establishing [the claims] have . . . been alleged or proved, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact” (Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276, 279 [1978]).

Section 3212(f) permits a court to deny summary judgment as premature when essential facts may be unavailable until discovery is completed.

Olmedo-Garcia v. Dobson · filed 2006-07-25(f)

On this record, and particularly in light of the fact that discovery in this case was not completed, we find that Chowdury’s motion should have been denied as premature, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery, because essential facts regarding her status as a bona fide purchaser of the subject property may exist which are currently unavailable to the plaintiff (see CPLR 3212 [f|; Morris v Hochman, 296 AD2d 481 [2002]; Serota v Power House Realty Corp., 274 AD2d 427 [2000]; Gerrity Co. v Bonacquisti Constr. Corp., 136 AD2d 59, 65 [1988]; Nordlicht v Norton Simon, Inc., 70 AD2d 511 [1979]).

CPLR 3212(a) requires a reason for filing a summary judgment motion more than 120 days after the note of issue.

Coneo v. Washington Heights Hellenic Orthodox Church, Inc. · filed 2006-10-19(a)

Although the motion was denied for failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, it should have been denied as untimely, as it was made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue without any reason given for the delay (CPLR 3212 [a]; see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Section 3212(a) requires a summary judgment motion within 120 days after the note of issue is filed unless a court order or rule provides otherwise, or the court grants leave for good cause.

Filannino v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority · filed 2006-11-14(a)

Therefore, we decline to disturb Supreme Court’s exercise of its “broad discretion” in determining that no good cause existed to entertain the merits of the cross motion (Fahrenholz v Security Mut. Ins. Co., 32 AD3d at 1328).

Section 3212(a) requires good cause for a summary judgment motion filed after a court-ordered deadline, even when that deadline is shorter than 120 days.

Mizell v. Eastman & Bixby Redevelopment Co. · filed 2006-11-28(a)

Since the defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of good cause for their failure to make their motion for summary judgment prior to the expiration of the court-ordered deadline, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion.

CPLR 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no material issues of fact remain.

Feinberg v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. · filed 2007-01-03(b)

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the proponent must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Osborne v. Tooker · filed 2007-01-23(b)

The plaintiff demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the defendant’s counterclaims seeking to impose a constructive trust on the subject properties (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). ... In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; Rosenzweig v Singer, 18 AD3d 853, 853-854 [2005]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact when the movant has made a prima facie showing.

Whyte v. City of Yonkers · filed 2007-01-23(b)

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

When a court vacates a note of issue and a new one is filed, a summary judgment motion made about two weeks after the new filing is timely under CPLR 3212(a).

Williams v. Peralta · filed 2007-02-20(a)

The court improperly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was untimely. In an order dated November 23, 2005 the court vacated the plaintiffs’ note of issue, struck the case from the calendar, and instructed the plaintiffs to file a new note of issue within 30 days. As noted, the plaintiffs filed a new note of issue on December 12, 2005. It is undisputed that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was brought approximately two weeks later on December 29, 2005. Accordingly, the motion was not untimely pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a) (see Farrington v Heidkamp, 26 AD3d 459 [2006]; Johnson v Ladin, 18 AD3d 439 [2005]; Mohamed v City of New Rochelle Police Dept., 290 AD2d 425 [2002]; Lebreton v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 211 [1999]; Bono v Barzallo, 260 AD2d 592 [1999]).

Section 3212(a) requires a summary judgment motion to be served within 120 days after the note of issue is filed unless the movant shows good cause for the delay.

Rivers v. City of New York · filed 2007-02-27(a)

The City’s untimely cross motion for summary judgment should not have been considered in view of its failure to offer a satisfactory explanation for not serving it within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue as required by CPLR 3212 (a) (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

Section 3212(a) permits a court to deny an untimely summary judgment motion without considering its merits when the movant shows no good cause for the delay.

Rocky Point Drive-in, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven · filed 2007-02-27(a)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint without consideration of the merits since it was untimely and no good cause was shown for its tardiness (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]) and it constituted an improper successive motion for summary judgment (see Lapadula v Sang Shing Kwok, 304 AD2d 798 [2003]; Gadley v U.S. Sugar Co., 259 AD2d 1041 [1999]; Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Windsor Place Corp., 238 AD2d 142, 143 [1997]).

Section 3212(b) requires the court to determine whether the movant’s papers justify judgment as a matter of law, with no triable issue of material fact.

Zev Cohen, LLC v. Fidelity National Title Insurance · filed 2007-03-12(b)

CPLR 3212 (b) requires that for a court to grant summary judgment the court must determine if the movant’s papers justify holding as a matter of law “that the cause of action or defense has no merit.” ... In viewing the evidence submitted, by plaintiffs in favor of their motion for summary judgment and by defendants in their cross motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the instant action, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party the court finds the absence of triable issues of material fact.

A summary judgment motion is timely under CPLR 3212(a) when its notice is served within 120 days after the note of issue is filed.

Gazes v. Bennett · filed 2007-03-13(a)

Accordingly, since the note of issue was filed on October 3, 2005, and defendant’s motion was made on January 25, 2006, when it was served by mail, it was timely as it was made within the 120-day statutory period (CPLR 3212 [a]).

CPLR 3212(a) permits a summary judgment motion filed within the court-ordered time frame to be considered.

In re the Estate of Tuccio · filed 2007-03-20(a)

Contrary to the objectant’s contention, the petitioner adhered to the court-ordered time frame for filing of dispositive motions, and thus, her motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate was properly considered by the Surrogate’s Court (see CPLR 3212 [a]; cf. Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; Mitchell v New York Hosp., 61 NY2d 208, 214 [1984]; J & A Vending v J.A.M. Vending, 303 AD2d 370, 371-372 [2003]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment and the opponent to show a triable issue with admissible evidence.

Dow v. Lenox Hill Hospital · filed 2007-04-10(b)

Defendants, through the affirmations of their medical experts, met their burden as summary judgment movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment, and plaintiff did not in response “show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” by evidentiary proof in admissible form (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212, a court determines whether a factual issue exists without resolving it.

Town of Macedon v. Hsarman · filed 2007-06-08

The court’s duty is to determine whether an issue of fact exists, not to resolve it. ... As such, Lamar’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs complaint as against it with prejudice is granted.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment only when there are no triable issues of fact.

Lavin v. Town of East Greenbush · filed 2007-06-15

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should not be granted unless it is clear that there are no triable issues of fact (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment may be granted when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Groon v. Herricks Union Free School District · filed 2007-07-10(b)

The evidence which the plaintiff presented in opposition to the motion, including the affidavit of her engineering expert, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

A summary judgment motion made after a preliminary conference order’s 60-day deadline following the filing of the note of issue is untimely.

DiBenedetto v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. · filed 2007-09-11(a)

Although the note of issue was filed on April 27, 2006 the third-party defendant failed to move for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint until August 17, 2006, notwithstanding the fact that the court’s preliminary conference order expressly recited that such motions were to be made within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue. Under these circumstances, the motion clearly was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

CPLR 3212(a)’s 120-day deadline does not bar a summary judgment motion filed within a period expressly reserved by an earlier court order.

Spierer v. Bloomingdale's · filed 2007-10-04(a)

Respondents’ motions were timely and not barred by the requirement in CPLR 3212 (a) that a motion for summary judgment be brought within 120 days after filing of a note of issue, as the court’s order of August 13, 2004 reserved defendants’ right to file such motions up to 60 days after completion of discovery.

CPLR 3212 (f) permits a party to defeat or delay summary judgment for needed discovery only when the proof is exclusively within the moving party’s knowledge, the opposition rests on more than hope or conjecture, and the party has tried to discover contrary facts.

Voluto Ventures, LLC v. Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP · filed 2007-10-25(f)

To avail oneself of CPLR 3212 (f) to defeat or delay summary judgment, a party must demonstrate that the needed proof is within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party (Berkeley Fed. Bank & Trust v 229 E. 53rd St. Assoc., 242 AD2d 489 [1997]), that the claims in opposition are supported by something other than mere hope or conjecture (Neryaev v Solon, 6 AD3d 510 [2004]), and that the party has at least made some attempt to discover facts at variance with the moving party’s proof (see Cruz v Otis El. Co., 238 AD2d 540 [1997]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment only when the pleadings and affidavits show no triable issues of fact.

100 Motor Parkway Associates, LLC v. American Motorists Insurance · filed 2007-11-07

Summary judgment should only be granted if the pleadings, together with the affidavits, show that there are no triable issues of fact (see CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment when a party shows that it needs further discovery.

Jasco Tools, Inc. v. Rogers · filed 2007-11-09(f)

We conclude on this appeal that, because plaintiff established ... that discovery has yet to be completed, Supreme Court erred in granting the subsequent motion of Rogers in part, granting Rogers summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him and granting him partial summary judgment on liability on his counterclaim (see Ferrara v Maio, 221 AD2d 588 [1995]; see also Julio C.W. Stajano v United Tech. Corp. of N.Y., 273 AD2d 162, 163 [2000]; see generally CPLR 3212 [f]).

Section 3212(b) requires denial of summary judgment when the facts show an issue that must be tried.

27 Jefferson Avenue, Inc. v. Emergi · filed 2007-11-19(b)

A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.” (CPLR 3212 [b].) The “motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.” (Id.)

CPLR 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when evidence needed to oppose the motion remains exclusively in the moving party’s possession.

Conciatori v. Port Auhtority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2007-12-04(f)

Thus, evidence necessary for the plaintiffs to effectively oppose the defendant’s cross motion remains exclusively in the defendant’s possession (see Levy v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 232 AD2d 377, 378 [1996]), and summary judgment on this ground should have been denied as premature (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Juseinoski v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 29 AD3d 636, 638 [2006]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opponent to raise a triable issue of fact.

DeSantis v. Lessing's, Inc. · filed 2007-12-18(b)

The evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, consisting primarily of an affidavit prepared by her expert, William Marietta, Ph.D., ... failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(a) requires a summary judgment motion filed after the applicable deadline to be supported by leave of court and good cause for the delay.

Paterno v. CYC, LLC · filed 2007-12-18(a)

Since the plaintiff’s filing of the note of issue on July 29, 2005, after Michael J. Paterno’s death, was not a nullity, Chazen’s motion for summary judgment, which was not made until March 22, 2006, was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]). Accordingly, since Chazen did not seek leave of court nor offer good cause for the delay, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion as untimely without considering the merits (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Soltes v 260 Waverly Owners, Inc., 42 AD3d 565, 565-566 [2007]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no relevant triable issue of fact remains.

Sirota v. Champion Motor Group, Inc. · filed 2008-01-04(b)

Therefore, since Champion has established a prima facie entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint as a matter of law and no relevant triable issue of fact is raised herein, its cross motion for summary judgment must be granted and Sirota and AC Delco’s motion for summary judgment must be denied (see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]).

Under subsection (b), a plaintiff opposing a prima facie showing for summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Gaspard v. Board of Education · filed 2008-01-22(b)

the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to either issue (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the submitted proof establishes a claim or defense as a matter of law, including a dispute resolved by an unambiguous agreement.

Metal Goods & Manufacturers Insurance Trust Fund v. Advent Tool & Mold, Inc. · filed 2008-02-05(b)

CPLR 3212 (b) provides, in relevant part, that a motion for summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.” ... This is a legal question determinable from the unambiguous language employed in the Trust Agreement and summary judgment is appropriate.

CPLR 3212(f) permits a court to decide a summary judgment motion before discovery when the opposing party fails to show that essential facts may exist but cannot yet be stated.

Logan-Baldwin v. L.S.M. General Contractors, Inc. · filed 2008-02-08(f)

Finally, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court acted prematurely in determining the cross motion inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that “facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated” (CPLR 3212 [f]; see Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 102-103 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

CPLR 3212(a) requires good cause for leave to make an untimely summary judgment motion.

Dallal v. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. · filed 2008-02-13(a)

Fursuant to rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Term Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County, the defendant was required to make its motion for summary judgment no more than 60 days after the note of issue was filed, except with leave of the court on good cause shown. Here, the subject motion was untimely and the excuses proffered by the defendant were insufficient to constitute good cause for the delay (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Pierre v Feldman, 41 AD3d 454, 455 [2007]; Breiding v Giladi, 15 AD3d 435 [2005]).

Section 3212(a) requires a summary judgment motion within 120 days after the note of issue is filed unless the court grants leave for good cause; vague assertions of settlement talks do not establish good cause.

State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Parking Systems Valet Service · filed 2008-02-13(a)

The plaintiff was required to make its motion for summary judgment no more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed, unless it obtained leave of the court on good cause shown (see CPLR 3212 [a]). The vague and conclusoiy assertions made by plaintiffs counsel regarding “settlement talks” with defense counsel were insufficient to constitute good cause for the six-month delay in making the motion for summary judgment (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Perini Corp. v City of New York [Department of Envtl. Protection], 16 AD3d 37, 40 [2005]; Neves v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 265 AD2d 393, 394 [1999]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant shows that no material issue of fact requires a trial.

Little West 12th Street Realty L.P. v. Inconiglios · filed 2008-02-20

Under CPLR 3212, a motion for summary judgment shall be denied if, following presentation of the relevant facts, there remains sufficient controversy over any material issue of fact sufficient to require a trial. ... Here, respondent has demonstrated that there are no triable issues of material fact regarding the residential use of three building units.

Section 3212 requires denial of summary judgment when a material factual dispute requires a trial.

Townhouse West, LLC v. Williams · filed 2008-03-21

Under CPLR 3212, a motion for summary judgment shall be denied if, following presentation of the relevant facts, there remains sufficient controversy over any material issue of fact sufficient to require a trial.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment on the record.

Havens v. County of Saratoga · filed 2008-04-03(b)

On this record, defendants have not established their entitlement to summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Lamp v County of Cortland, 98 NY2d 748, 749 [2002], revg 294 AD2d 795 [2002]; Spiratos v County of Chenango, 28 AD3d at 863).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no material factual issue requires trial.

People v. Grasso · filed 2008-04-24(b)

Pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) a court will grant a motion for summary judgment upon a determination that the movant’s papers justify holding, as a matter of law, “that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit.”

A summary judgment motion made within section 3212(a)’s 120-day period cannot be denied as untimely under a later-assigned judge’s 60-day part rule when the movant could not have known of the assignment before that shorter period expired.

Gomez v. Penmark Realty Corp. · filed 2008-04-29(a)

The motion, which was made within 120 days as required by CPLR 3212 (a), should not have been denied as untimely based on Justice Saks’s part rules imposing a 60-day limit where the case had not previously been before Justice Saks but a different judge whose part rules made no provision for the timing of summary judgment motions, and it does not appear that defendant could have known of the assignment to Justice Saks until after the 60 days had run.

Section 3212 requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.

Bass Development of New York, Inc. v. Baisch · filed 2008-05-23

When deciding a summary judgment motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact after the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Rogers v. City of New York · filed 2008-06-10(b)

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Without a CPLR 3212 motion, neither a trial court nor an appellate court may grant summary judgment on its own initiative.

Barrett v. Watkins · filed 2008-06-12

In the absence of a CPLR 3212 motion for summary relief, however, neither a trial court nor an appellate court can, sua sponte, grant such relief (see Conroy v Swartout, 135 AD2d 945, 947 [1987]; De Pan v First Natl. Bank of Glens Falls, 98 AD2d 885, 886 [1983]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Blaise v. New Beach Farm Corp. · filed 2008-06-17(b)

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(a), a refiled note of issue can make a summary judgment motion timely, and good cause can justify a delayed motion.

Marks v. Model · filed 2008-07-08(a)

The plaintiffs contention raised upon reargument that Dr. Model’s motion was barred by CPLR 3212 (a) is without merit. As noted by the Supreme Court, discovery continued well after the plaintiff filed her initial note of issue, and the note of issue was stricken and refiled on September 21, 2006. Therefore, Dr. Model’s motion was timely pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a) and, in any event, good cause was demonstrated for the delay in bringing the motion (see Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124 [2000]; Sclafani v Washington Mut., 36 AD3d 682 [2007]).

Unless a court orders otherwise, a party moving for summary judgment more than 120 days after the note of issue must obtain leave and show good cause for the delay.

Covert v. Samuel · filed 2008-07-11(a)

Although plaintiffs cross-moved over 120 days after the note of issue was filed, they neither sought leave to file a late motion nor made any showing of good cause for their delay pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a). Thus, that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion with respect to negligence was time-barred, and Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the cross motion.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

Camacho v. Dwelle · filed 2008-09-09(b)

The only admissible medical evidence that the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the separate motions, an affirmed report prepared by Dr. Mark Kostin, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to present competent evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and eliminating material factual disputes.

Weiner v. Board of Assessors of Town of Harrison · filed 2008-09-16

Upon a summary judgment motion, the movant bears the initial burden of presenting evidence, in competent form, establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and “tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Way v Grantling, 289 AD2d 790, 793 [3d Dept 2001]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party is entitled to summary judgment when it establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing parties fail to raise a triable issue of fact.

Weitz v. Anzek Construction Corp. · filed 2008-09-23(b)

ORU’s submissions were sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In response, the respondents failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

CPLR 3212 requires good cause for a late summary judgment motion.

Cohen-Putnam Agency, Ltd. v. Hudson Building Maintenance, Inc. · filed 2008-10-14

The Supreme Court erred in entertaining the summary judgment motion brought by the defendant long past the time required by CPLR 3212, in the absence good cause shown (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Dettmann v Page, 18 AD3d 422 [2005]).

Section 3212 requires the moving party to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Rogowsky v. McGarry · filed 2008-10-21

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the first cause of action alleging breach of an oral agreement by coming forward with evidentiary proof that there was no enforceable agreement between the parties (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Morse, 1 AD3d 516, 517 [2003]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires evidence opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact.

Johnson v. County of Suffolk · filed 2008-10-28(b)

The medical evidence which the plaintiffs submitted in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to show a triable issue of fact.

State v. Davis · filed 2008-11-05(b)

The burden falls to the opponent of the motion, petitioner herein, to submit admissible evidence that there is in fact a triable issue of fact remaining. ... As such, the respondent’s application for an order of this court granting summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and dismissing the petition is granted.

Section 3212(f) does not defeat summary judgment on a mere hope that discovery will reveal helpful evidence; the opponent must show that essential facts are unavailable.

Brummer v. Barnes Firm · filed 2008-11-14(f)

Likewise without merit is plaintiffs contention that the court should have denied defendants’ motion as premature (see CPLR 3212 [f]). Plaintiff failed to establish that facts essential to oppose the motion were in defendants’ possession, and a “mere hope” that discovery will disclose evidence to prove plaintiffs case is insufficient to defeat the motion (Ramesar v State of New York, 224 AD2d 757, 759 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]; see Wright v Shapiro, 16 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2005]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the proof shows no issue of fact requiring trial and judgment is warranted as a matter of law.

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency · filed 2008-11-19(b)

Based upon all of the papers and proof submitted there are no issues of fact requiring trial, and judgment as a matter of law in favor of a party is warranted (CPLR 3212 [b]) relative to the Agency’s causes of action to enforce its March 25, 2008 determination.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a defendant seeking summary judgment must show that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case.

Savagev. Desantis · filed 2008-11-20(b)

To prevail on summary judgment, defendant must establish ...that plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Barksdale v Henry, 228 AD2d 947, 948 [1996]).

Under § 3212(a), a summary judgment motion filed 20 days after the note of issue is timely under the Sixth Judicial District’s 60-day local rule.

Oakes v. Muka · filed 2008-11-26(a)

As plaintiffs motion, which sought relief under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and/or 3212, was filed 20 days after the filing of the note of issue, it was timely under both CPLR 3211 (see CPLR 3211 [e]) and the local rule enacted by the Sixth Judicial District providing for summary judgment motions within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue (see CPLR 3212 [a]).

Section 3212(f) permits a court to deny summary judgment as premature when discovery may reveal factual disputes.

Gera v. All-Pro Athletics, Inc. · filed 2008-12-16(f)

However, under the circumstances, including the fact that All-Pro has thus far been deprived of an opportunity to review BBH’s records, awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on his first cause of action was premature, since discovery may disclose that issues of fact exist as to whether, for example, BBH paid the loans in whole or in part (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Salm v Feldstein, 20 AD3d 469 [2005]; Morris v Goldstein, 223 AD2d 582 [1996]; cf. Hanneford Circus v Cabar Circus Promotions, 201 AD2d 456, 457 [1994]).

Section 3212 does not permit a court to grant summary judgment on its own when neither party has moved for it.

Berle v. Buckley · filed 2008-12-24

A court cannot, sua sponte, grant summary judgment in the absence of any CPLR 3212 motion for such relief (see Barrett v Watkins, 52 AD3d 1000, 1002 [2008]; De Pan v First Natl. Bank of Glens Falls, 98 AD2d 885, 886 [1983]).

Section 3212(a)'s time limit for filing a summary judgment motion is unaffected by a stay of trial.

Lucente v. Riverbay Corp. · filed 2009-01-13(a)

Nor did the stay of trial we issued on January 4, 2007 (2007 NY Slip Op 60256[U] [2007]) in connection with defendants’ appeal from the denial of their motion to consolidate this action with Viera have any impact on the time limit for filing a motion for summary judgment.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Hadley v. Keren · filed 2009-02-03(b)

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(a) measures the time to move for summary judgment from the filing of the note of issue, and good cause may excuse a late motion.

Mohen v. Stepanov · filed 2009-02-10(a)

The Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the defendant’s motion was timely under CPLR 2103 (b) (2). That statute provides that “where a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period” (emphasis added). Both the order of the Supreme Court and CPLR 3212 (a) measure the period within which motions for summary judgment must be made as commencing upon the filing of the note of issue. Accordingly, CPLR 2103 (b) (2) does not extend the time within which such motions may be made (see Coty v County of Clinton, 42 AD3d 612, 613 [2007]). Thus, the defendant’s motion was untimely. ... *504Nonetheless, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining the merits of the motion. At the time that the defendant served her motion, the Appellate Division, First Department, had rendered two decisions holding that CPLR 2103 (b) (2) extended the time in which a motion for summary judgment could be made under CPLR 3212 (a) when a copy of the note of issue was served by mail (see Luciano v Apple Maintenance & Servs., 289 AD2d 90 [2001]; Szabo v XYZ, Two Way Radio Taxi Assn., 267 AD2d 134, 135 [1999]). Since the Appellate Division, Third Department, did not render its contrary decision in Coty v County of Clinton until July 5, 2007, and there were no extant Appellate Division or Court of Appeals decisions contrary to Luciano and Szabo as of May 25, 2007, the date on which the defendant served her motion, the trial courts in this Department were bound, on that date, to follow the precedent established by the Appellate Division, First Department, with respect to this issue (see Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664 [1984]; cf. People u Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 482 [2005]; Nachbaur v American Tr. Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 74, 76 [2002], cert denied sub nom. Moore v American Tr. Ins. Co., 538 US 987 [2003]; People v Shakur, 215 AD2d 184, 185 [1995]). Consequently, the defendant’s reliance on the holding of Luciano and Szabo provided good cause for her delay (cf. CPLR 2004, 3212 [a]; Kwang Ho Kim v D & W Shin Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 616 [2008]).

A party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Sobin v. Tylutki · filed 2009-02-24(b)

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact with admissible evidence.

Gentilella v. Board of Education · filed 2009-03-03

The admissible medical evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212).

A summary judgment cross motion filed within the court’s 90-day deadline after the note of issue is timely.

Huether v. New York Times Building, LLC · filed 2009-03-03(a)

While it is true that this was beyond the 60-day deadline set forth in rule 13, this court’s individual part rules allow for summary judgment motions to be made within 90 days of the filing of the note of issue. Consequently, plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment is not untimely.

Under CPLR 3212, a movant who makes a prima facie showing is entitled to summary judgment if the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Lowenbraun v. Garvey · filed 2009-03-24

Similarly, Garvey demonstrated, prima facie, that he did not engage in such wrongful conduct. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

A summary judgment motion made after the applicable deadline requires the court’s permission.

Lance International, Inc. v. First National City Bank · filed 2009-04-06(a)

The instant motion is denominated as one for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212. As argued by plaintiff, the time to make such a motion has long since passed, and this court never gave permission for defendant to make a belated one, or to amend the one already under submission.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when a party’s cause of action or defense is established sufficiently to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Agco Corp. v. Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. · filed 2009-04-23(b)

However, after looking at the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties, we find that neither side’s “cause of action or defense” was “established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of [that] party” (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Khafizov v. Chase Manhattan Bank · filed 2009-05-19(b)

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]).

Section 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to tender evidence sufficient to eliminate a viable claim as a matter of law.

Children's Corner Learning Center v. A. Miranda Contracting Corp. · filed 2009-05-21

To the extent that Berger moved to dismiss the common-law indemnification claims against it pursuant to CPLR 3212, it, unlike JAM, failed to tender evidence sufficient to negate that possibility as a matter of law.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Rosello v. City of New York · filed 2009-05-26(b)

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Carlson v. Zimmerman · filed 2009-06-09(b)

Here, the plaintiffs satisfied their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability in connection with these causes of action by demonstrating that the defendants intentionally entered onto the land belonging to the plaintiffs “without justification or permission” (id.; see Long Is. Gynecological Servs. v Murphy, 298 AD2d 504 [2002]; Golonka v Plaza at Latham, 270 AD2d 667, 669 [2000]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they either had “a lawful right to enter these properties or had the owner’s permission” (State of New York v Johnson, 45 AD3d 1016, 1019 [2007]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to show that no material factual dispute exists.

Brianic International Realty Corp. v. Pitt · filed 2009-06-09(b)

A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate an absence of any material issue of fact. (See CPLR 3212 [b]; JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384-385 [2005].) ... He has met his burden by showing that even if everything petitioner alleges is true, he has independent tenancy rights that protect him from eviction.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Lynch v. Winchester Homeowner's Ass'n · filed 2009-06-30(b)

The appellants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Section 3212(a) permits an extension of the time to move for summary judgment when significant discovery remains outstanding when the note of issue is filed.

Jones v. Grand Opal Construction Corp. · filed 2009-07-07(a)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for leave to extend their time to move for summary judgment to the extent of permitting such motion no later than 45 days after the completion of physical examinations, since there was significant discovery outstanding at the time the note of issue was filed (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124 [2000]; Marks v Model, 53 AD3d 533 [2008]; Sclafani v Washington Mut., 36 AD3d 682 [2007]; Herrera v Felice Realty Corp., 22 AD3d 723, 724 [2005]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the proof establishes a claim or defense as a matter of law and requires denial when a factual issue needs a trial.

Chan v. 2368 West 12th Street LLC · filed 2009-08-10(b)

A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.” (CPLR 3212 [b].) The “motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.” (Id.)

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Rosenfeld v. Hudson Valley Stadium Corp. · filed 2009-09-15

For the same reason, LMV established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and, in opposition, the plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Procopio v Town of Saugerties, 20 AD3d 860 [2005]; Wade-Keszey v Town of Niskayuna, 4 AD3d 732 [2004]; Suarez v HBQVB Athletic Assn., 303 AD2d 396 [2003]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), evidence opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion.

Stern v. Schwartz · filed 2009-09-15(b)

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Sonne v. Board of Trustees of Village of Suffern · filed 2009-09-29

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the initial test is whether the movant established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment only when no triable issue of fact exists and the moving party establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Vic's Parking Corp. v. Nash · filed 2009-10-13

It is well established that summary judgment may be granted only where it is clear that no triable issue of fact exists. ... The burden is upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment with admissible evidence; the opposing party must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Sidiropoulos v. Orbit Flooring, Inc. · filed 2009-10-20(b)

Galaxy established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence in admissible form demonstrating that there was no basis for holding it liable for the plaintiffs’ damages (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 557).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment without a trial only when no genuine, triable issue of fact exists.

720-730 Fort Washington Avenue Owners Corp. v. Utica First Insurance · filed 2009-11-04(b), (c)

Thus, it may be granted without a trial only if no genuine, triable issue of fact is presented (Werfel v Zivnostenska Banka, 287 NY 91 [1941]; CPLR 3212 [b], [c]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ford v. Domino's Pizza, LLC · filed 2009-11-04(b)

Domino’s also established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cross claim to recover damages for breach of contract based upon the failure of BLC to procure liability insurance for Domino’s benefit, as required by the lease between these parties. In opposition, BLC failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted Domino’s motion in its entirety (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Section 3212(a) permits a court to consider a summary judgment motion filed after an earlier court-set deadline when counsel reasonably understood a later directive to allow filing within the section’s 120-day limit.

Madison Third Building Companies, LLC v. Berkey · filed 2009-07-07(a)

Inasmuch as defendants’ attorney reasonably interpreted a court attorney’s oral directive at a post-note of issue conference that summary judgment motions “be made in accordance with the CPLR,” to mean that the time to make a summary judgment motion had been extended from the 45 day deadline set in two pre-note of issue conference orders to the 120-day outer ... limit permitted by CPLR 3212 (a), such excuse was reasonable under the circumstances and the motion should have been considered on its merits.

A party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact to avoid judgment.

Nulty v. Sayre · filed 2009-11-10(b)

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

An opponent of summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Balcuns v. City of New York · filed 2009-11-24(b)

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact, but the movant must also negate an applicable res ipsa loquitur theory to obtain judgment.

Jappa v. Starrett City, Inc. · filed 2009-11-24(b)

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s actual or constructive notice (see CPLR 3212 [b]). ... Here, the defendant did not negate the applicability of that doctrine. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion and granted the plaintiffs cross motion.

Section 3212(a) generally allows 120 days after the filing of a note of issue to move for summary judgment; a later motion requires leave of court for good cause.

Joson v. G & S Realty 1, LLC · filed 2009-12-22(a)

Generally, unless a trial court specifies otherwise, a party has 120 days after the filing of a note of issue to move for summary judgment, after which it may do so only with “leave of court on good cause shown” (CPLR 3212 [a]).

Under CPLR 3212 (b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Saetia v. VIP Renovations Corp. · filed 2009-12-22(b)

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Lea v Cucuzza, 43 AD3d 882 [2007]).

Section 3212(a) permits an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion for good cause.

Ocasio-Gary v. Lawrence Hospital · filed 2010-01-05(a)

Nor did the court err in finding that defendant Orin failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time in which to file his motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Under CPLR 3212, once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement, the opposing party must produce admissible evidence of a triable issue of fact.

Gerow v. Sinay · filed 2010-01-07

Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the burden of proof shifts to the nonmoving party to likewise come forth with evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact.