Summary
The Appellate Division reversed an order that converted the defendants’ CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted dismissal. The court held that CPLR 3211(c) required notice of the intended conversion, and that the parties had not unequivocally charted a summary judgment course sufficient to excuse the notice requirement.
Holdings
- A court intending to treat a CPLR 3211 motion as one for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 must notify the parties of that intention.
- The exception to the notice requirement does not apply where the parties' evidentiary submissions were not so extensive as to demonstrate that they were laying bare their proof.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court could convert defendants' CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without providing notice under CPLR 3211(c).
- Whether the parties' evidentiary submissions were sufficiently extensive to establish that they had unequivocally charted a summary judgment course, thereby excusing the notice requirement.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (9)
- Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 251, 258 (2012)(followed)
- Mihlovan v. Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506, 508 (1988)(followed)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Kuldip, 108 A.D.3d 686, 687 (2013)(followed)
- One Monroe, LLC v. City of New York, 89 A.D.3d 812, 813 (2011)(considered)
- Harris v. Hallberg, 36 A.D.3d 857, 858 (2007)(considered)
- Wesolowski v. St. Francis Hosp., 108 A.D.3d 525, 526 (2013)(considered)
- Sunset Cafe, Inc. v. Mett's Surf & Sports Corp., 103 A.D.3d 707, 708 (2013)(considered)
- Warren v. Mikle, 40 A.D.3d 974, 975 (2007)(considered)
- Hoeffner v. John F. Frank, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 428, 430 (2003)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…