GLASSER v. ABRAMOVITZ

We reject plaintiff's argument that motion courts have discretion to entertain nonprejudicial, meritorious post-note of issue motions made after a court-imposed deadline but within the statutory maximum 120-day period in CPLR 3212 (a) regardless of whether good cause is shown for the failure to meet the deadline ( cf. Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726 [statutory deadlines "to be taken seriously by the parties" no less than court-ordered deadlines]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652-653 [same]; see Giordano v CSC Holdings, Inc., 29 AD3d 948). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments, including that he showed good cause for the delay in moving for summary judgment, and find them unavailing.