AHERN v. SHEPHERD, 89 A.D.3d 1046 (2011)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20111201314
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2011
Summary: Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. CPLR 3212 (b) provides that "[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions." Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment because he failed to include a copy of the pleadings in support of his cross motion, as required by CPLR 3212 (b) ( see Fiber Consultants, I
Summary: Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. CPLR 3212 (b) provides that "[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions." Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment because he failed to include a copy of the pleadings in support of his cross motion, as required by CPLR 3212 (b) ( see Fiber Consultants, In..
More
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
CPLR 3212 (b) provides that "[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions." Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment because he failed to include a copy of the pleadings in support of his cross motion, as required by CPLR 3212 (b) (see Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 84 A.D.3d 1153 [2011]; Liberty Doorworks, Inc. v Baranello, 83 A.D.3d 1011 [2011]; Matter of Fraternal Order of Eagles v Board of Assessors, 73 A.D.3d 770 [2010]; Zellner v Tarnell, 54 A.D.3d 329 [2008]; Sendor v Chervin, 51 A.D.3d 1003 [2008]; Thompson v Foreign Cars Ctr., Inc., 40 A.D.3d 965 [2007]; Matsyuk v Konkalipos, 35 A.D.3d 675 [2006]; Wider v Heller, 24 A.D.3d 433, 434 [2005]; Sted Tenants Owners Corp. v Chumpitaz, 5 A.D.3d 663 [2004]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention.
Source: Leagle
