Santagata v. Vinegar Hill Group, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santagata v. Vinegar Hill Group, LLC

41 A.D.3d 576, 837 N.Y.S.2d 342

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 576 (Santagata v. Vinegar Hill Group, LLC) 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

Santagata v. Vinegar Hill Group, LLC, 41 A.D.3d 576, 837 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 14, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court dated July 5, 2006, searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $240,940.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the order is vacated.

The Supreme Court erred in searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. The record reflects that the only motion before the court was the plaintiffs motion for a jury trial, which the defendants opposed. The Supreme Court characterized its action as “searching the record” pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b). However, CPLR 3212 (b) permits the court to search the record where there is a pending motion for summary judgment, and then to award judgment where it is warranted in favor of a nonmoving party as to a cause of action that has been placed in issue by the papers (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1996]). Both of the cases the Supreme Court cited in support of its action in searching the record (see Carnegie Hall Corp. v City Univ. of N.Y., 286 AD2d 214 [2001]; Dormena v Wallace, 282 AD2d 425 [2001]) involved pending motions for summary judgment. Since there was no such motion here, those cases are inapposite. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 14, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court dated July 5, 2006, searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $240,940.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the order is vacated.

The Supreme Court erred in searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. The record reflects that the only motion before the court was the plaintiffs motion for a jury trial, which the defendants opposed. The Supreme Court characterized its action as “searching the record” pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b). However, CPLR 3212 (b) permits the court to search the record where there is a pending motion for summary judgment, and then to award judgment where it is warranted in favor of a nonmoving party as to a cause of action that has been placed in issue by the papers (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1996]). Both of the cases the Supreme Court cited in support of its action in searching the record (see Carnegie Hall Corp. v City Univ. of N.Y., 286 AD2d 214 [2001]; Dormena v Wallace, 282 AD2d 425 [2001]) involved pending motions for summary judgment. Since there was no such motion here, those cases are inapposite. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 576, 837 N.Y.S.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santagata-v-vinegar-hill-group-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack