You are here: / / DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID...
, ,

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA REQUIRED BY CPLR 3211(a)(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer’s (Reliastar’s) motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence should not have been granted. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract when Reliastar canceled the life insurance policy:

“To succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law”… . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” … . Here, in support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), Reliastar submitted the policy and certain policy notices, which, according to Reliastar, refuted the plaintiffs’ contention that the policy cancellation was the result of Reliastar’s breach of its obligations under the policy. The policy notices, however, were, in effect, letters, which fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Magee-Boyle v Reliastar Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 05118, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

You might also like
INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL INVESTIGATED THE INCIDENT WITHIN 90 DAYS, PLAINTIFF IS DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, THE NOTICE WAS TWO DAYS LATE.
BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROVED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS INSPECTED (AT MOST) AN HOUR AND TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE FALL; THAT PROOF WAS SUFFICIENT TO AWARD DEFENDANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN MAY BE FILED TO CORRECT THE NAMING OF THE WRONG CONTRACTOR IN THE FIRST LIEN (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).
ASSIGNMENT OF AN INTEREST IN A JUDGMENT WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY WHO PAID THE ASSIGNOR HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PAYMENT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSIGNOR TREATED AS IF MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH (UNNECESSARILY) INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THE PEOPLE TO MEET THAT BURDEN.

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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT,... REMOVING PORTABLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ A STRUCTURE...