The summary judgment process provides a method of terminating a case before it is submitted to the jury when only questions of law are involved and there are no genuine issues of fact. When a party to a lawsuit cannot show that there is a fact issue for the jury to determine, the grant of summary judgment to the opposing party does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial.

A summary judgment is often filed after the parties discover some facts in the discovery process, and one or both parties believe that the facts conclusively establish their right to prevail at trial, and that no reasonable jury could find the facts to be otherwise.

In New York, the summary judgment process is governed by the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), specifically CPLR 3212. This rule allows a party to seek a judgment without a trial when there are no material issues of fact in dispute and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion for summary judgment can be filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant after issue has been joined, but no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, unless the court sets a different deadline. The party seeking summary judgment must show that there are no genuine disputes regarding any material facts and that they are entitled to judgment based on the undisputed facts. This is typically supported by affidavits, documents, and deposition testimony obtained during the discovery process. If the court finds that there are no material facts in question and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it will grant summary judgment, thereby resolving the case without the need for a jury trial. This does not infringe upon the constitutional right to a jury trial, as that right is preserved for cases where material facts are in dispute and need to be resolved by a jury.