Bowes v. Healy

40 A.D.3d 566, 833 N.Y.S.2d 400
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 1, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 566 (Bowes v. Healy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowes v. Healy, 40 A.D.3d 566, 833 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered February 9, 2006, which, upon converting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss, as time-barred, their causes of action to recover damages for personal injuries into one for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action, granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ causes of action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendants’ motion is denied.

The defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss, as time-barred, the plaintiffs’ causes of action to recover damages for personal injuries was untimely because it was not made before service of her responsive pleading was required (see CPLR 3211 [e]; Diaz v DiGiulio, 29 AD3d 623 [2006]). Furthermore, although the Supreme Court was authorized to treat the motion as one for summary judgment upon “adequate notice to the parties” (CPLR 3211 [c]), no such notice was given, and none of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement are applicable here (see Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506 [1988]). Neither party made a specific request for summary judgment, and the record does not establish that they deliberately charted a summary judgment course (see Mihlovan v Grozavu, supra; Moutafis v Osborne, 18 AD3d 723 [2005]; Sta[567]*567Brite Servs., Inc. v Sutton, 17 AD3d 570 [2005]). Moreover, the motion was not one which exclusively involved “a purely legal question rather than any issues of fact” (Mihlovan v Grozavu, supra at 508; Moutafis v Osborne, supra). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in treating the defendant’s motion as one for summary judgment without providing notice. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Moody v. Hmoud
2021 NY Slip Op 01762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v. Lumbrereas
2021 NY Slip Op 00742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Fedele v. Qualified Personal Residence Trust of Doris Rosen Margett
137 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Johnson
129 A.D.3d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Portilla v. Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan
125 A.D.3d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Jones v. Rochdale Village, Inc.
96 A.D.3d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Velez v. Captain Luna's Marina
74 A.D.3d 1191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Clinkscale v. Sampson
74 A.D.3d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Fontanetta v. John Doe 1
73 A.D.3d 78 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Nowacki v. Becker
71 A.D.3d 1496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Garner v. China Natural Gas, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Burnside 711, LLC v. Nassau Regional Off-Track Betting Corp.
67 A.D.3d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Bennett v. Hucke
64 A.D.3d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Neurological Services of Queens, P.C. v. Farmingville Family Medical Care, PLLC
63 A.D.3d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Methal v. City of New York
50 A.D.3d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 A.D.3d 566, 833 N.Y.S.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowes-v-healy-nyappdiv-2007.