You are here: / / Requirements for Motion to Dismiss on Documentary Evidence
,

Requirements for Motion to Dismiss on Documentary Evidence

In this case, the Second Department addressed the proof requirements for a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion (motion to dismiss on documentary evidence), the potential validity of an unsigned agreement in the context of such a motion, and the proper remedy when a referee exceeds his or her authority:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, although [defendant] offered documentary proof that the loan reinstatement agreement was not signed…, this proof does not conclusively dispose of the plaintiff’s specific performance or breach of contract claims since an unsigned agreement may constitute an enforceable contract where there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound …. We further note that since [defendant] sought dismissal of the specific performance and breach of contract causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that it had a defense founded on documentary evidence, the motion should have been decided solely on the documentary evidence proffered in support of the motion. …. Furman v Wells Fargo Home Mtge Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02374, 2011-10281, 2011-10284, Index No 25616/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

You might also like
IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT TESTIMONY OF THE PEOPLE’S DNA EXPERT, THE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION (SECOND DEPT).
No Special Duty Owed to Claimant/County Clerk Cannot Be Sued For Failure to Properly Docket a Judgment
In a Sexual Abuse Proceeding—Effects of Victim’s Exercise of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Exclusion of Appellant During Testimony of Victim Explained
THE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS GOVERNED BY THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW, NOT THE SIX-YEAR CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO INQUIRE FURTHER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLOCUTION (SECOND DEPT).
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Recovery of Lost Profits for Breach of Contract Described

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Remedy When Referee Exceeds Authority Unpleaded Cause of Action Can Be Raised in Opposition to Summary Judgment—Must...