You are here: / / EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY...
,

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).

The Second Department determined the evidence submitted by defendant law firm in support of a motion to dismiss the malpractice complaint based on documentary evidence was properly denied. The letters and affirmation did not constitute “documentary evidence” and did not utterly refute plaintiff's allegations:

“The evidence submitted in support of a [CPLR 3211(a)(1)] motion must be documentary' or the motion must be denied” … . To qualify as documentary evidence, the evidence “must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity” … . “[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” … . Affidavits and letters “were not the types of documents contemplated by the Legislature when it enacted this provision”… .

Here, the letters … did not constitute documentary evidence for the purpose of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)… ,  Similarly, the affirmation of one of [the law firm's] members was not documentary evidence for the purpose of this motion … . Anderson v Armentano, 2016 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1)

You might also like
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Psychological Test Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Issue and Did Not Demonstrate the Test Was Invasive or Harmful
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED, THE REFEREE’S REPORT FUNCTIONS AS AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES WHICH THE DEFENDANTS CAN CONTEST (SECOND DEPT).
SURVEILLANCE TAPE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IT WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED BY DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THE TAPE ACCURATELY DEPICTED WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE.
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD HIRED ATRIUM, PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER, TO HANDLE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PAYROLL AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM ATRIUM FOR A WORK-RELATED INJURY; GTLF, AS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER, CANNOT BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND BREACH OF WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE OF AN IMPLANTED MEDICAL DEVICE WHICH ASSISTS THE HEART WERE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ENGINEERS WHO REPLACED THE LEAD TO THE DEVICE WERE NOT PREEMPTED (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE IN THE HALL OF A SCHOOL AND THE GLASS SHATTERED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE A SIMILAR INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND SOME OF THE PANELS IN THE DISPLAY CASE WERE MADE OF SHATTERPROOF PLEXIGLASS; PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES-LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE... FAILURE TO PROVIDE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR CHALLENGE TO BLACK JUROR REQUIRED...