In Kershaw v. Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75, 88 [1st Dept 2013] the First Department clarified when a court may consider an untimely cross motion for summary judgment, explaining that: "Allowing movants to file untimely, mislabeled 'cross motions' without good cause shown for the delay, affords them an unfair and improper advantage. Were the motions properly labeled they would not be judicially considered without an explanation for the delay. Moreover, the exception discussed in Filannino allowing the courts to consider proper but untimely cross motions, at least to issues shared with the original motion, addresses the dissent's concern that a cross-moving party might be caused to file its motion late because it had insufficient time before the deadline occurred. "We are concerned that the respect for court orders and statutory mandates and the authoritative voice of the Court of Appeals are undermined each time an untimely motion is considered simply by labeling it a 'cross motion' notwithstanding the absence of a reasonable explanation for its untimeliness. We therefore affirm the branch of the motion court's order which denied HSS summary judgment as untimely made without consideration of its merits" (Kershaw, 114 AD3d at 88-90).