Niles v. County of Chautauqua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niles v. County of Chautauqua

285 A.D.2d 988, 727 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6995

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 988 (Niles v. County of Chautauqua) 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

Niles v. County of Chautauqua, 285 A.D.2d 988, 727 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and [989]*989as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: The failure of the County of Chautauqua (defendant) to support its motion with a copy of the pleadings filed in the action requires denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Logan v L.A. Mgt. & Rest., 275 AD2d 1026; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991; Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443; Wolverine Worldwide, 233 AD2d 587; Dupuy v Carrier Corp., 204 AD2d 977), regardless of the merits of the motion. We therefore modify the order by denying defendant’s motion in its entirety. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Martoche, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and [989]*989as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: The failure of the County of Chautauqua (defendant) to support its motion with a copy of the pleadings filed in the action requires denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Logan v L.A. Mgt. & Rest., 275 AD2d 1026; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991; Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443; Wolverine Worldwide, 233 AD2d 587; Dupuy v Carrier Corp., 204 AD2d 977), regardless of the merits of the motion. We therefore modify the order by denying defendant’s motion in its entirety. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Martoche, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 988, 727 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niles-v-county-of-chautauqua-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack