M.J., etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered July 2, 2025, which denied, as untimely, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment because they failed to demonstrate good cause for their late filing (see Brill v. City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 651 [2004] ).  Defendants timely made their original motion on July 26, 2024 by serving it on plaintiffs within the 120–day deadline after plaintiffs filed their April 8, 2024 note of issue (CPLR 3212[a] ).  In an order dated November 26, 2024, the court denied the motion without prejudice so the case could be converted to electronic form.  The order directing the conversion was filed on January 8, 2025 and the conversion occurred on January 15, 2025.  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, but rather to the court itself.  However, even after the January 15, 2025 conversion, defendants waited an additional 62 days, until March 17, 2025, to e-file their renewed motion for summary judgment.  Because defendants offered no explanation for that delay, the motion was untimely under Brill (see Perini Corp. v City of New York [Dept. of Envtl.  Protection], 16 AD3d 37, 38–40 [1st Dept 2005] [although the defendant demonstrated good cause for its initial delay in filing its summary judgment motion, the motion was denied as untimely because the defendant failed to show good cause for unexplained three-month delay] ).

Contrary to defendants’ contention, their initial timely motion for summary judgment does not provide a basis for treating the late filing of the renewed motion as a mere procedural irregularity.  The initial motion was denied, leaving no timely motion pending, and defendants were therefore obliged to demonstrate good cause for the two-month delay in filing the renewed motion (cf.  Deprospo v. Nixon–Cochran, 223 AD3d 460, 460 [1st Dept 2024] ).

In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the merits of defendants’ motion (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 727 [2004] ).