The courts continue the forward march to some type of new normal in the wake of the pandemic, which has clearly resulted in modifications to discovery and pre-trial practices. It is a good time to re-examine some of the important rules that have governed and continue to govern the manner in which an action moves forward.

An important rule which should not be forgotten is CPLR 3212(a) which controls the timing of summary judgment motions after the completion of discovery and filing of a note of issue. Meritorious motions for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 are commonly made and frequently useful in limiting the issues for trial, or resolving actions which do not have material triable issues of fact and may be adjudicated by the court as a matter of law. Summary judgment motions are ideally made when pre-trial discovery is complete and the note of issue has been filed. However, it is clear that, with greater prevalence, discovery may not have been completed prior to the filing of the note of issue. The question that remains is when may a timely motion be made under CPLR 3212(a) after the time for filing such motions in accordance with the statute or individual court rules may have expired? It is imperative to show good cause for these delays.

Prior to a 1996 amendment to CPLR 3212(a), motions for summary judgment could be made at any time after issue was joined. As such, it was possible to move for summary judgment even on the eve of trial. CPLR 3212(a) was amended to prevent these last minute motions and to limit the time within which post-note of issue motions for summary judgment could be made.