Parties may chart their own litigation course, and often the Court accedes.  Here, however, in West Village Assoc. L.P. v Balber Pickard Battistoni    Maldonado & VanDerTuin, PC    2012 NY Slip Op 31444(U)   May 25, 2012   Sup Ct, New York County   Docket Number: 108423/05  Judge: Saliann Scarpulla, problems arose for the motion maker.  Over the past several years, Courts have tightened the rules/dates for summary judgment motions.  This is an example.

‘It is well settled that “statutory time frames [and] court-ordered time- e frames are not options, they are requirements, to be taken seriously by the parties.” Micsli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725, 726 (2004) (citing Kihl v. Pfefler, 94 N.Y.2d 118 [ 19991). A Court has no “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) . . . .” Glasser v Abramovitz, 37 A.D.3d 194, 194 (1” Dept 2007).‘ See also Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 653 (2004). Therefore, the deadline included in the Scheduling Order – 60 days from the completion of
depositions – is to be strictly followed. See also Corchado v City of New York, 64 AD3d 429 ( 1st Dept 2009). The fact that the parties then entered into the July 25 stipulation, has no effect on
this analysis. The July 25 stipulation states in pertinent part that “[although the time in which Defendants can move for summary judgment . . . may expire as early as July 27, 20 1 1, the undersigned hereby stipulate and agree that the motion for summary judgment can be served on July 29,201 1, by hand and also by electronic transmittal (such as e-mail)  Balber’s affidavit of service indicates that the moving papers were served on July 29, 20 1 1 by priority mail and electronic mail, not by hand and electronic mail as specified in the stipulation. Further, the papers served that day were either incomplete or not final, as an “updated set of motion papers” were served via electronic mail on August 2, 20 1 1. Additionally, the July 29, 2011 notice of motion was never filed with the court, but rather an Amended Notice-of Motion, also dated July 29, 20 I 1 and served via e-mail on September 9, 20 1 1, was filed September 9, 2011. Even where parties are allowed to chart their own course,” they are bound to follow that course, and comply with the
stipulation they executed. Mill Rock Plaza Assocs. v. Lively, 224 A.D.2d 301 (1st Dep’t 1996) (“[strict enforcement of the parties’ stipulation . . . is warranted based upon the principle that the parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course). See also Powell v. Kasper, 84 A.D.3d 915, 917 (2d Dep’t 201 1) (summary judgment motion filed beyond deadline set forth in parties’ stipulation denied as untimely). "