You are here: / / WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF...

WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that because respondents had made a pre-answer motion to dismiss petitioner’s cause of action, the motion court should not have granted the relief sought by petitioner. Rather the respondents should have been allowed to answer the petition:

… [T]he Supreme Court improperly awarded [petitioner] the ultimate relief sought on the second cause of action. Upon denying the respondents’ pre-answer motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court should have permitted the respondents to answer the petition (see CPLR 7804[f] …). … [W]e remit the matter … for the service and filing of an answer and the administrative record. Matter of O’Hara v Board of Educ., Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 05703, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON, DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE 2ND DEPT.
Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury Question—Only If the Jury Determines the Evidence Was Relevant Can the Jury Consider the Adverse Inference Charge for Spoliation of Evidence
AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS INJURED WHEN DEFENDANT’S TREADMILL SUDDENLY ACCELERATED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE TREADMILL-ACCELERATION DAYS BEFORE SHE WAS INJURED, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, BUT IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY A SUBPOENA MAILED TO HIS NEW YORK ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (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

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRIES BEFORE DETERMINING NEW YORK... THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR...