M.J., etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v City of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Holding The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as untimely because they failed to demonstrate good cause for a 62-day delay in filing the renewed motion after the court-ordered electronic conversion. The court held that the initial timely motion did not excuse the subsequent delay, as it had been denied without prejudice, leaving no pending motion.

The court’s words

Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion for summary judgment because they failed to demonstrate good cause for their late filing

2026 NY Slip Op 05600, at the official text

Although both these dates were well beyond the 120-day deadline set forth in CPLR 3212(a), the delay could not be attributed to defendants

2026 NY Slip Op 05600, at the official text

Because defendants offered no explanation for that delay, the motion was untimely under Brill

2026 NY Slip Op 05600, at the official text

The initial motion was denied, leaving no timely motion pending, and defendants were therefore obliged to demonstrate good cause

2026 NY Slip Op 05600, at the official text