From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vanek v. Mercy Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1987
135 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 21, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the plaintiff's cross motion is denied with leave to resubmit the cross motion upon proper notice within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination on the appellants' respective motion and cross motion, and the plaintiff's cross motion, if resubmitted.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's cross motion based on his failure to comply with the notice provisions of CPLR 2215 and 2103 (see, Matter of Beck v Goodday, 24 A.D.2d 1016; Morabito v Champion Swimming Pool Corp., 18 A.D.2d 706; Silverman v Silverman, 261 App. Div. 1106). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the order is reversed with leave to the plaintiff to resubmit his cross motion upon proper notice and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a new determination on the appellants' respective motion and cross motion and the plaintiff's cross motion, if resubmitted. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vanek v. Mercy Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1987
135 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Vanek v. Mercy Hospital

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD VANEK, JR., Respondent, v. MERCY HOSPITAL et al., Appellants, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 21, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Stanley Tulchin Associates, Inc. v. Vignola

No party moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff was not put on notice that it was required to lay bare…

Smith v. State

In fact, Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims § 206.8(a) provides that, in addition to complying with the…