Gallagher v. TDS Telecom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gallagher v. TDS Telecom

280 A.D.2d 991, 720 N.Y.S.2d 422, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1153

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 991 (Gallagher v. TDS Telecom) 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

Gallagher v. TDS Telecom, 280 A.D.2d 991, 720 N.Y.S.2d 422, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant failed to support its motion with a copy of the pleadings filed in the action and thus Supreme Court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Logan v L.A. Mgt. & Rest., 275 AD2d 1026; McMahon v Wolverine Worldwide, 233 AD2d 587; Dupuy v Carrier Corp., 204 AD2d 977). The court, however, properly denied the cross motion for summary judgment because plaintiff also failed to submit a copy of the pleadings in support of his cross-motion (see, Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443). Therefore, we modify the order and judgment by denying defendant’s motion and reinstating the complaint. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant failed to support its motion with a copy of the pleadings filed in the action and thus Supreme Court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Logan v L.A. Mgt. & Rest., 275 AD2d 1026; McMahon v Wolverine Worldwide, 233 AD2d 587; Dupuy v Carrier Corp., 204 AD2d 977). The court, however, properly denied the cross motion for summary judgment because plaintiff also failed to submit a copy of the pleadings in support of his cross-motion (see, Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443). Therefore, we modify the order and judgment by denying defendant’s motion and reinstating the complaint. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 991, 720 N.Y.S.2d 422, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-v-tds-telecom-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack