Miceli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 21 October 2004 |
| Citation | 786 N.Y.S.2d 379,819 N.E.2d 995,3 N.Y.3d 725 |
| Parties | MARY MICELI, Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Stuart M. Bodoff, Evan H. Krinick and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), and Hagelin & Bischof, LLC, for appellant.
Barth, Sullivan & Behr, LLP, Buffalo (Laurence D. Behr of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
Barely five months ago, in Brill v City of New York (2 N.Y.3d 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 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.
Order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavarria v. 2709-11 Coney Island Ave. LLC
...motion simply because it has merit and the adversary is not prejudiced. See, Brill v City of New York, supra; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 726-727(2004); Tower Ins. Co. of New York v. Razy Associates, supra; Soltes v 260 Waverly Owners, 42 A.D.3d 565 (2nd Dept. 2007......
-
Amigon v. Maxwin USA, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 32035(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/14/2008), 0007858/2006
...motion simply because it has merit and the adversary is not prejudiced. See, Brill v City of New York, supra; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 726-727(2004); Soltes v 260 Waverly Owners, 42 A.D.3d 565 (2nd Dept. 2007). Here, although the note of issue was filed on Novem......
-
Rivera v. State
...in the absence of a showing of good cause for the delay in filing that application (id. ; accord Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 786 N.Y.S.2d 379, 819 N.E.2d 995 [2004] ).8 Restatement (Second) of Agency § 229(2) provides that,"[i]n determining whether or not the con......
-
Castillo v. 281 Broadway Assocs.
...2013] ; Dallal v. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 48 A.D.3d 508, 849 N.Y.S.2d 912 [2nd Dept 2008]citing Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725 [2004] ; Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 652 [2004] ; Pierre v. Feldman, 41 A.D.3d 454, 455, 836 N.Y.S.2d 702 [2nd ......
-
CPLR 3126 conditional orders requiring disclosure "can't get no respect".
...have several times before, that disregard of deadlines should not and will not be tolerated"); Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 726- 27, 819 N.E.2d 995, 996, 786 N.Y.S.2d 379, 380 (2004) (citing to Kihl the Court observed that "statutory time frames--like court-ordere......
-
A. Summary Judgment Procedure
...412 (2d Dep't 2007).[1220] 2 N.Y.3d 648, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261 (2004).[1221] Id. at 653.[1222] Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 786 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2004); Polhamus v. Foulke, 20 A.D.3d 888, 798 N.Y.S.2d 610 (4th Dep't 2005); Asaro v. City of N.Y., 19 A.D.3d 167, 795 N.Y.S.2d......
-
A. Summary Judgment Procedure
...412 (2d Dep't 2007).[1203] 2 N.Y.3d 648, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261 (2004).[1204] Id. at 653.[1205] Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 786 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2004); Polhamus v. Foulke, 20 A.D.3d 888, 798 N.Y.S.2d 610 (4th Dep't 2005); Asaro v. City of N.Y., 19 A.D.3d 167, 795 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Section 7.21 D. Effective Judicial Oversight Needed
...Practice Commentary, CPLR 3126, at 123 (Supp. 2010).[1033] . Connors, McKinney’s Practice Commentary, CPLR 3126, at 464–65 (2005).[1034] . 3 N.Y.3d 725, 786 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2004).[1035] . Id. at 726–27.[1036] . Andrea v. Arnone, 5 N.Y.3d 514, 521, 806 N.Y.S.2d 453 (2005) (citations omitted); ......