## Facts

- Ona Brill alleged she tripped and fell on a public sidewalk in Brooklyn on February 15, 1998, sustaining injuries.
- Ona Brill and Maurice Brill sued the City of New York and others on June 4, 1998.
- After discovery, plaintiffs filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness on June 28, 2001, and sought a trial preference based on Ona Brill’s age.
- On June 18, 2002, nearly a year after the note of issue, the City moved for summary judgment, asserting lack of prior written notice of the sidewalk defect and no applicable exception.
- The City provided no explanation for filing beyond CPLR 3212(a)’s 120-day deadline.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may consider and grant an untimely summary-judgment motion under CPLR 3212(a) based on judicial economy and lack of prejudice, absent a showing of good cause for the delay.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.
- The trial court should not have considered the merits of the City’s summary-judgment motion because it was untimely and unsupported by good cause.
- Judicial economy and lack of prejudice do not satisfy CPLR 3212(a)’s “good cause shown” requirement.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 3212(a) requires summary-judgment motions to be made no later than 120 days after filing the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown.
- “Good cause” means a satisfactory explanation for the lateness; it does not mean that the motion appears meritorious.
- Courts may not excuse noncompliance with CPLR 3212(a) solely because hearing the motion might save time or because the opponent cannot show prejudice.
- Absent good cause, an untimely summary-judgment motion must be denied without reaching the merits.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals enforced CPLR 3212(a)’s deadline by holding that a late summary-judgment motion cannot be entertained without a valid explanation for the delay, and that judicial economy and lack of prejudice are not substitutes for good cause.


Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648 (N.Y. 2004)