Summary
In Williams v. County of Genesee, 289 A.D.2d 1026 (4th Dept.2001), the Court held that the failure of a party to include a copy of the pleadings filed in the action in support of its cross-motion requires that summary judgment be denied regardless of the merits of the cross-motion.
Summary of this case from Barber v. Cornell Univ. Coop. Extension of Orange Cnty.Opinion
(1643) CA 00-1017
December 21, 2001.
(Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.)
PRESENT: HAYES, J.P., SCUDDER, BURNS, GORSKI AND LAWTON, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum:
Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the cross motion of defendants County of Genesee, Martha Standish, Veronica Frost, Mary A. Haitz, Kathy L. Hartwig, Suzanne C. Palone, Dawn M. Waters, Charles Venditte, and Jean Wiater seeking summary judgment dismissing certain causes of action in action No. 2 against those individual defendants. The failure of those defendants to support their cross motion with a copy of the pleadings filed in the action requires denial of their cross motion for summary judgment ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]; DiSano v KBH Constr. Co., 280 A.D.2d 951, 952; Deer Park Assocs. v. Robbins Store, 243 A.D.2d 443), regardless of the merits of the cross motion ( see, Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Piper, 286 A.D.2d 903; Niles v. County of Chautauqua, 285 A.D.2d 988). We therefore modify the order by denying that part of the cross motion seeking summary judgment in its entirety and reinstating the second cause of action in action No. 2 against Frost, Venditte, and Wiater; the third cause of action in action No. 2 against Frost, Haitz, Hartwig, Palone, Waters, and Standish; and the fifth cause of action in action No. 2 against Standish.