Husted v. Vermilyea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Husted v. Vermilyea

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

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 825 (Husted v. Vermilyea) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 825, 738 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/husted-v-vermilyea-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack