Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Dintino

198 A.D.2d 901, 604 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11569
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1993·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and third-party complaint reinstated against Great Lakes Motor Corporation and Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. Memorandum: Third-party defendant Great Lakes Motor Corporation (Great Lakes) moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the third-party complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Supreme Court, without notifying the parties to that action of its intent to do so, "deemed” the motion to dismiss to be a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes and Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. That was error (see, CPLR 3211 [c]; Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276, 281). Moreover, the fact that plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint did not authorize Supreme Court to search the record in the third-party action and to grant summary judg[902] ment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) in that action (see, Sutton v Cobb, 50 AD2d 995). CPLR 3212 (b) authorizes a court to search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to the action or cause of action that is the subject of the summary judgment motion (see, Marshall v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 186 AD2d 542, 543-544; Marsico v Southland Corp., 148 AD2d 503, 506; Conroy v Swartout, 135 AD2d 945, 947; Jillsunan Corp. v Wallfrin Indus., 79 AD2d 943; Sutton v Cobb, supra).

Because Supreme Court improperly converted Great Lakes’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, it did not consider whether the third-party complaint states a cause of action. We decide that issue in the interest of judicial economy and conclude that it does state a cause of action. That pleading, liberally construed, alleges that the third-party plaintiff suffered damage as the result of negligent repair by Great Lakes of his leased vehicle. Thus, we deny Great Lakes’ motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Balio, J. P., Fallon, Boomer and Davis, JJ.

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

Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Dintino, 198 A.D.2d 901, 604 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

198 A.D.2d 901 (Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Dintino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Horodova v. Richard
2024 NY Slip Op 50430(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Christine L.H. v. Graovac
201 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Rohr v. Dewald
2018 NY Slip Op 4160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v. PCL Props., LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 6745 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
LARKE, III, JIMMIE v. MOORE, TINA MCCARY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Larke v. Moore
2017 NY Slip Op 3630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
MARTINEZ, JACOB v. CITY OF BUFFALO
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Martinez v. City of Buffalo
149 A.D.3d 1469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Bondanella v. Rosenfeld
298 A.D.2d 941 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Lee v. City of Rochester
254 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Bridgehampton National Bank v. Schaffner
247 A.D.2d 351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Williams v. DeCarlo
235 A.D.2d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Dunham v. Hilco Construction Co.
676 N.E.2d 1178 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)