You are here: / / FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED...

FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE MOTION COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that plaintiff's failure to attach the pleadings to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was not a fatal defect:

The defendants' contention that the plaintiff's failure to annex the pleadings to its motion papers was a fatal defect is without merit. CPLR 3212(b) requires, inter alia, that a moving party support its motion for summary judgment by attaching a copy of the pleadings. However, CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party's mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced … . Here, the pleadings were not only electronically filed and available to the Supreme Court and the parties, but the answer was submitted by the defendants in opposition to the motion, and the summons and complaint were submitted in reply by the plaintiff. The defendants did not assert that they were prejudiced by the omission. Under such circumstances, the court properly disregarded the plaintiff's omission … . Sensible Choice Contr., LLC v Rodgers, 2018 NY Slip Op 05790, Second Dept 8-15-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE MOTION COURT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3212 (FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE MOTION COURT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2001 (FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE MOTION COURT (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE MOTION COURT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3212 (FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE MOTION COURT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Plaintiff’s Recovery for On-the-Job Injury Against “Alter Ego” of Plaintiff’s Employer Limited to Workers’ Compensation
REQUEST WAS PROPERLY DEEMED AN APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE, NOT A USE VARIANCE, AND WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
In a Sexual Abuse Proceeding—Effects of Victim’s Exercise of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Exclusion of Appellant During Testimony of Victim Explained
ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).
NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF; CITY WAS THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM SUIT.
FATHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer Standing to Allege Violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
A PROPOSED LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT BY THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BANK MUST DEMONSTRATE IT HAS STANDING TO FORECLOSE TO ESTABLISH BOTH A VALID... OMISSION OF RETURN DATE FROM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN...