Husted v. Vermilyea

291 A.D.2d 825, 738 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 993

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Centra, J.), entered June 26, 2001, which denied the motion of defendant Federal Express Corporation for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Federal Express Corporation (defendant) seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claims against it. The failure of defendant to support its motion with a copy of the answer filed in the action requires denial of the motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Piper, 286 AD2d 903), regardless of its merits (see, Niles v County of Chautauqua, 285 AD2d 988, 989). In any event, we conclude that the motion lacks merit. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Bums and Lawton, JJ.

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

Husted v. Vermilyea, 291 A.D.2d 825, 738 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

291 A.D.2d 825 (Husted v. Vermilyea) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Niles v. County of Chautauqua
285 A.D.2d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Piper
286 A.D.2d 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)