Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
In high-stakes medical malpractice litigation, timing can be just as critical as the substance of the claims. Courts enforce strict deadlines for dispositive motions like summary judgment, which can derail a party’s case. However, a recent New York decision suggests that courts will consider granting leeway when confusion arises from court-generated discrepancies. If you are contemplating pursuing a medical malpractice claim, it is wise to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney for guidance.
Background of the Case
It is alleged that the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action against multiple defendants, including individual medical providers and healthcare institutions, arising from care provided at a hospital and diagnostic center. Reportedly, after years of litigation and discovery, the plaintiff filed a Note of Issue in October 2024, signaling that the case was trial-ready.
It is reported that the defendants, including a physician and a hospital, filed motions for summary judgment on December 31, 2024, seeking to dismiss the claims. However, these motions were filed 90 days after the Note of Issue, exceeding the standard 60-day deadline set by the trial court’s rules. The plaintiff objected, arguing that the motions were untimely and should be rejected.
Allegedly, the defendants responded by arguing that their delay stemmed from confusion regarding which judge’s rules governed the case. Specifically, they contended that the New York State Courts Electronic Filing (NYSCEF) system erroneously listed the case as assigned to a Medical Malpractice Part judge, whose rules permitted 90 days to file dispositive motions. They relied on these electronic notifications and the plaintiff’s own Note of Issue, which listed the Medical Malpractice judge, to justify their timeline.
Good Cause for Delays in Medical Malpractice Cases
The court reviewed the defendants’ arguments under CPLR 3212(a) and the seminal decision in Brill v. City of New York, which requires parties to demonstrate “good cause” for late dispositive motions. The court emphasized that “good cause” demands more than a showing that the delay was harmless or that the motion had merit—it requires a satisfactory explanation for why the motion was late.
Here, the court acknowledged that the defendants presented a credible and detailed explanation. It is reported that both the plaintiff and the defendants received conflicting notifications from NYSCEF, with the system designating a different judge—one whose rules allowed for a 90-day deadline—at the time the Note of Issue was filed and when the summary judgment motions were submitted.
The court noted that the defendants’ reliance on official e-filing system communications and the plaintiff’s Note of Issue created a reasonable, non-frivolous belief that the 90-day deadline applied. While the plaintiff pointed to prior orders from a different judge that specified a 60-day deadline, the court found that the confusion stemming from court-generated information distinguished this case from typical law office failures.
Citing precedent that excuses delays where litigants rely in good faith on erroneous official court information, the court found that the defendants’ explanation satisfied Brill’s “good cause” standard. Accordingly, the court permitted the motions to be deemed timely.
Confer with an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
Procedural missteps in medical malpractice cases can have significant consequences, but courts may exercise discretion when confusion stems from the judiciary’s systems. If you are harmed by medical malpractice, it is critical to retain an attorney to protect your interests. The experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you navigate complex procedural issues and advocate for your rights. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to schedule a consultation.
