The distinction between summary judgment and partial summary judgment is well-known in New York practice. CPLR 3212(b) provides for summary judgment in toto if, “upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.” CPLR 3212(e) provides for partial summary judgment, or “summary judgment…as to one or more causes of action, or part thereof, in favor of any one or more parties, to the extent warranted, on such terms as may be just.”
Yet little is known of CPLR 3212(g), “a seldom used procedural device contained within CPLR 3212 that serves alongside its more frequently used legal cousins—the motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment.” Launt v. Lopasic, 189 A.D.3d 1740, 1744 (3d Dept. 2020). Professors Siegel and Connors lament, “This is unfortunate because [CPLR 3212(g)] can be versatile.” David D. Siegel and Patrick M. Connors, New York Practice, §286, p. 542 (6th ed., Practitioner Treatise Series, 2018).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
