N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment for a nonmoving party when the record supports it.

New York State Medical Care Facilities Finance Agency v. Bank of Tokyo Trust Co. · filed 1995-06-20(b)

In light of its contractual obligation to do so, the record clearly supports the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff, the nonmoving party in this case, on the issue of liability (CPLR 3212 [b]; Raine v Gleason, 194 AD2d 395, 396, lv denied 82 NY2d 655).

A party opposing summary judgment must submit evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue on its defenses and counterclaims.

Eastbank, N. A. v. Phoenix Garden Restaurant, Inc. · filed 1995-06-22

Moreover, defendants failed to submit evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue with respect to their asserted defenses and counterclaims (supra, at 137-138).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party.

Noce v. Wilmorite, Inc. · filed 1995-07-24(b)

the court is entitled to search the record and grant the relief in favor of a nonmoving party.

Under CPLR 3212, conclusory allegations unsupported by evidentiary facts do not defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Blakeney v. City of New York · filed 1995-12-04

The conclusory allegations in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars that the NYCTA in some unspecified manner both caused the condition complained of and made a special use of the premises, fail to present evidentiary facts sufficient to warrant the denial of the branch of the NYCTA’s motion which was for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Gold v City of New York, supra).

CPLR 3212 gives a party opposing summary judgment considerable leeway to explain why it cannot yet meet strict pleading requirements.

Busby v. Ticonderoga Central School District · filed 1995-12-14

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment is allowed considerable leeway in demonstrating an acceptable excuse for the failure to meet the strict pleading requirements of CPLR 3212 (see, River Bank Am. v Daniel Equities Corp., 213 AD2d 929).

An opponent of summary judgment must show facts sufficient to require a trial.

Vitolo v. O'Connor · filed 1996-01-04(b)

It is settled law that to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under Section 3212, an opponent of summary judgment must raise an issue of fact to defeat the motion.

Weil v. 227 East 57th Street, Inc. · filed 1996-01-23

Plaintiffs submissions in response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment failed to raise any issues of fact with respect to either the existence of a special use on behalf of these defendants or the creation of the defect by these defendants.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to award summary judgment to the opposing party when the record shows that party is entitled to judgment.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Spindle City Distributing, Inc. · filed 1996-02-01(b)

Accordingly, we shall modify Supreme Court’s order only to the extent of awarding summary judgment in favor of plaintiff dismissing the latter pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present admissible evidence showing a factual issue for trial.

Sobol v. Porter · filed 1996-03-14(b)

Plaintiff was then required to "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]) and to make his showing by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Once the movant establishes a prima facie case, the party opposing summary judgment must show a triable issue of fact with admissible evidence.

Ward v. Lawrence · filed 1996-03-18(b)

After a prima facie case has been established by the movant, "to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must 'show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact’ (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]). Normally if the opponent is to succeed in defeating a summary judgment motion he * * * must make his showing by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form” (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Section 3212(b) ordinarily requires a party opposing summary judgment to submit evidence in admissible form, but permits a sufficient excuse for failing to do so.

Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. v. De Premis · filed 1996-03-21(b)

While plaintiff correctly argues that the opponent of a summary judgment motion must ordinarily produce evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) or suffer defeat, it is also true that this rule is somewhat flexible, to the extent that the opposing party "may be permitted to demonstrate acceptable excuse for his [or her] failure to meet the strict requirement of tender in admissible form” (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068).

CPLR 3212 requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Winters v. Menowitz · filed 1996-04-08

Under the circumstances, the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of showing sufficient admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212; Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., supra).

Under CPLR 3212(b), once a movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must show facts requiring a trial.

Salcedo v. Parikh · filed 1996-04-29(b)

The defendant third-party plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether Dr. Beaubrun participated in the patient’s treatment during the relevant period. Therefore, the court should have granted summary judgment to Dr. Beaubrun.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to present admissible evidence of facts requiring a trial; unsupported allegations are insufficient.

Roosevelt Savings Bank v. Jaffee · filed 1996-05-28(b)

It is well established that in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment after the movant has made out a prima facie case the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact (CPLR 3212 [b]). Thus, the opposing party must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form; mere conclusions, expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present admissible proof of a factual issue requiring trial.

Viale v. Royal Insurance · filed 1996-05-31(b)

Plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form to "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment for a nonmoving party when the record presents no issue of fact requiring trial.

Bishop v. Rubin · filed 1996-06-11(b)

Accordingly, summary judgment should be granted to the non-moving parties plaintiff (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party when no triable issue of fact remains.

Marciniak v. Gerbino · filed 1996-05-20(b)

Although the defendants Marian Realmuto and H.A. Gunzenberger did not move for summary judgment, in light of our determination that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a triable issue of fact that the infant plaintiff suffered a serious injury, these defendants are also entitled to summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits summary judgment for a nonmoving party even without a cross motion.

Cathedral Church of Saint John Divine v. Dormitory Authority · filed 1996-07-25(b)

In light of the foregoing, Supreme Court properly treated petitioners’ over-all request for relief as a motion for summary judgment (see, Matter of Bahar v Schwartzreich, 204 AD2d 441, 443; see also, CPLR 409 [b]) and, even in the absence of a cross motion by respondent, properly dismissed the parkland claim (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212 (b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party without a cross motion.

Ingham v. Long Island Lighting Co. · filed 1996-08-05(b)

Moreover, it was proper for the Supreme Court to search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant without the necessity of a cross motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits an appellate court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving, nonappealing party without a cross motion or cross appeal.

Sherba v. Midstate Precast Systems, Inc. · filed 1996-08-15(b)

Further, on a motion for summary judgment appellate courts may search the record and grant summary judgment to the nonmoving, nonappealing party without the necessity of a cross motion or a cross appeal (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 111; Florio v City of New York, 226 AD2d 148, 149; Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113, 114; Grimaldi v Pagan, 135 AD2d 496; see also, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to submit evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a question of fact.

Scaccia v. Dolch · filed 1996-09-27(b)

Plaintiff failed to submit evidentiaryproof sufficient to raise a question of fact with respect to the third cause of action (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits an unsworn report prepared by the moving party’s medical expert to serve as competent evidence opposing summary judgment.

Caruso v. Stark · filed 1996-10-21(b)

The report dated June 24, 1994, which was prepared by Dr. Richard S. Goodman, provided such evidence and thus raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether Mr. Caruso sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). We note that although the report was unsworn, because it was prepared by the defendant’s medical expert it constitutes competent evidence for the purpose of opposing the motion for summary judgment (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268).

A party opposing summary judgment must offer proof in evidentiary form; a conclusory assertion does not suffice to avoid dismissal.

Grier v. Johnson · filed 1996-10-24

On this record, plaintiff’s claim that Johnson’s failure to administer a field sobriety test represents a "purposeful avoidance” of relevant facts is completely conclusory and does not suffice to avoid dismissal on a summary judgment motion (see, Bassim v Howlett, 191 AD2d 760, 763).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Barton v. Lerman · filed 1996-11-07(b)

Nor was the court foreclosed, as plaintiffs urge, from granting summary judgment in defendant’s favor because the latter did not move for such relief (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212, a defendant who makes a prima facie showing may obtain summary judgment when the plaintiff’s opposition lacks competent evidence of a triable issue.

David v. Green · filed 1996-11-25

The defendant made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The only competent medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion was an affidavit dated August 29, 1995, which was prepared by Dr. Lawrence Shields. This affidavit failed to provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the plaintiffs alleged limitation and its duration (see, Beckett v Conte, 176 AD2d 774).

Once a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of a factual issue.

Rios v. Bryant · filed 1996-12-16(b)

Once the movant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, it is incumbent upon the party opposing the motion to "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]; Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067).

CPLR 3212 (b) permits summary judgment for a nonmoving party only on a cause of action or issue addressed by the summary judgment motions.

Dunham v. Hilco Construction Co. · filed 1996-12-19(b)

In light of the good sense underlying the unanimous support in the Appellate Divisions for a restriction on a court’s power to award summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party on an issue unaddressed in the summary judgment motions, we adopt that limitation as our own.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a party that did not cross-move when an independent review of the record warrants that relief.

George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance · filed 1996-12-19(b)

Although defendant did not cross-move for summary judgment, an independent review of the unambiguous insurance policy reveals that such relief is warranted (CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Tranchina v. Government Employees Insurance · filed 1997-01-21(b)

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied, and, upon searching the record (see, CPLR 3212 [b]), summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendant and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action entitled Weisshaut v Tranchina.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must show facts sufficient to require a trial of a factual issue.

Heil Grinding & Manufacturing Co. v. Glasgow, Inc. · filed 1997-02-07(b)

Plaintiff failed to "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Caruso v. Town of Oyster Bay · filed 1997-02-14(b)

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing and upon searching the record (CPLR 3212 [b]), the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the request for a declaration regarding the validity of Local Law No. 4 is denied and partial summary judgment is granted to the plaintiffs declaring that Local Law No. 4 is invalid and unenforceable.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to award summary judgment to a nonmoving party when the parties have addressed the dispositive issue.

Varick Drywall, Inc. v. Aniero Concrete Co. · filed 1997-03-10(b)

This issue was clearly addressed by the parties, and thus we ...exercise our power to award summary judgment to the appellant, a nonmoving party (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425; Grimaldi v Pagan, 135 AD2d 496).

Once a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the opponent must present admissible facts sufficient to require a trial.

Schell v. Nassau County Department of Health · filed 1997-03-17(b)

After the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to show admissible facts sufficient to require a trial on the issue of whether the defendants’ conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135; see also, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303; Glendora v Walsh, 227 AD2d 377; Ruggiero v Contemporary Shells, 160 AD2d 986).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a party who did not make the motion.

Litwak v. Our Lady of Victory Hospital of Lackawanna · filed 1997-04-25(b)

We therefore reverse the order, deny Eckhert’s motion for summary judgment, reinstate the complaint and cross claims against Eckhert, and grant summary judgment to plaintiff dismissing the second affirmative defense of workers’ compensation (see generally, CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-111).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to show facts sufficient to require a trial of a factual issue.

Barrett v. New York Republican State Committee · filed 1997-04-25(b)

Defendants’ submissions in response failed to "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 NY2d 550, 553-554; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Once a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of a factual issue.

Dominguez v. Community Health Plan of Suffolk, Inc. · filed 1997-06-09(b)

Once the movant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, it is incumbent upon the party opposing the motion to "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 326-327; Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment inasmuch as the plaintiff’s submissions demonstrated the existence of issues of fact regarding whether the claimed delay in diagnosis impaired the plaintiff’s decedent’s opportunity to avoid permanent damage (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

CPLR 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present admissible evidence showing a material question of fact.

Kaufman v. Silver · filed 1997-06-10

In our view, plaintiffs have not tendered evidentiary proof, in admissible form, demonstrating the existence of material questions of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to show facts requiring a trial once the movant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment.

Frattalone v. Freund · filed 1997-09-22(b)

Once the movant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, it is incumbent upon the party opposing the motion to “show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067).

A party opposing summary judgment must present admissible evidence that raises an issue of fact.

Sinon v. Anastasi · filed 1997-11-19(b)

Plaintiff failed to come forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise an issue of fact whether defendant had actual or constructive notice that the dog was either vicious or likely to interfere with traffic (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a defendant seeking to preserve an article 16 limited-liability defense based on a summary-judgment movant’s negligence to submit admissible evidence opposing the movant’s prima facie showing.

Drooker v. South Nassau Communities Hospital · filed 1998-01-02

While there is nothing in article 16 that requires a defendant to disclose prior to trial the identity of those tortfeasors whose joint liability will be invoked (see, Rodi v Landau, 170 Misc 2d 180; see also, Marsala v Weinraub, 208 AD2d 689), the establishment of prima facie entitlement to summary relief by one of the defendants in this litigation alters the equation, and, in this court’s view, serves to require a contrary evidentiary showing if a grant of the relief sought, together with all attendant ramifications, is to be avoided.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party when the evidence warrants it.

Demarest v. Bailey · filed 1998-01-15(b)

While it is true that Supreme Court is empowered to search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party when appropriate, such is not the case here. Unlike his spouse, John Tilley presented no evidence in testimonial or affidavit form sufficient to justify a summary finding that he was not present at any time during the party, that he was unaware that Bailey was going to host such a party and that he did not give permission for the event.

CPLR 3212(a) permits a party to move for summary judgment after issue is joined; the court cannot require certification that discovery is complete first.

Richard's Home Center & Lumber, Inc. v. Kownacki · filed 1998-02-02(a)

However, in view of the fact that CPLR 3212 (a) permits a ... party to “move for summary judgment * * * after issue has been joined”, the court improperly limited the appellants to moving for summary judgment only after the court certified that discovery was complete (see, Heist v Cameron, 211 AD2d 429; Matter of Hochberg v Davis, 171 AD2d 192).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to submit proof in evidentiary form raising a triable issue of fact.

Shoemaker v. State · filed 1998-02-04(b)

Defendant failed to submit proof in evidentiary form raising a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to the party opposing the motion.

In re the Estate of Cahill · filed 1998-02-11(b)

Therefore, the first branch of the motion is denied and the respondent granted summary judgment instead (CPLR 3212 [b]), determining that the real property in question is not a testamentary substitute for purposes of calculating the elective share.

A party opposing summary judgment must present sufficient evidence of a triable issue of fact.

Paula v. City of New York · filed 1998-04-16(b)

In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must present sufficient evidence that demonstrates the existence of a triable issue of fact (CPLR 3212 [b]; ...).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to the opposing party when the undisputed facts allow judgment as a matter of law.

Moore v. Elmwood-Franklin School · filed 1998-04-29(b)

Because the underlying facts are not in dispute, the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) may be decided as a matter of law. We therefore grant summary judgment to defendant dismissing the third cause of action (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party on an issue raised by the motions.

QDR Consultants & Development Corp. v. Colonia Insurance · filed 1998-06-29(b)

Although Colonia never cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing QDR’s claim for lost profits, it may raise on appeal the Supreme Court’s failure to grant it that relief because both the Supreme Court and this Court have the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-112; Vecchio v Lack, 131 AD2d 465).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment to offer admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Sonaike v. Sogade · filed 1998-09-28(b)

Upon the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, it was incumbent upon the defendant to offer admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Derdiarian v Felix Constr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315; see also, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the defendant’s sole submission in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion and in support of her cross motion for summary judgment was an affirmation of her attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts, she failed to sustain that burden (see, Stainless, Inc. v Employers’ Fire Ins. Co., 69 AD2d 27, 31, affd, 49 NY2d 924).

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, the opposing party must present evidence raising a triable issue of fact; a self-serving affidavit tailored to avoid earlier admissions may be insufficient.

Wright v. South Nassau Communities Hospital · filed 1998-10-05(b)

Such a self-serving affidavit did not present sufficient evidence to sustain the plaintiffs burden to defeat summary judgment, particularly when she failed to claim in either the pleadings or her deposition that she fell because of her inability to see.

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the moving party establishes its entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must present affirmative proof of a genuine issue of fact.

Honohan v. Martin's Food of South Burlington, Inc. · filed 1998-11-05(b)

“Once defendants establish by evidence a lack of foreseeability on their part and that their conduct conformed to the applicable standard of care, plaintiff[s] [were] obligated to assemble and lay bare affirmative proof that genuine issues of fact existed as to defendants’ negligence” (Ray v County of Delaware, supra, at 757; see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065; see also, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present sufficient evidence of a triable issue of fact after the movant shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Castro v. Village of Dobbs Ferry · filed 1998-12-28(b)

Upon the appellants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff was required to tender sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to show facts sufficient to require a trial of a factual issue.

Silvestri v. Iannone · filed 1999-05-03(b)

In order to avoid summary judgment the defendant was required to “show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a party that has not made a cross motion.

Niskayuna Square L. L. C. v. Albank, FSB · filed 1999-06-18(b)

Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of a cross motion for summary judgment by defendant, we grant summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-112; CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires evidence with evidentiary value to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Spodek v. Park Property Development Associates · filed 1999-07-12(b)

The schedule was not verified or certified and the defendant failed to submit an affidavit by the person who prepared it. Therefore, the defendant’s submission was without any evidentiary value and was insufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is proper when the moving party establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise an issue of fact.

Brandefine v. National Cleaning Contractor, Inc. · filed 1999-10-18(b)

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendants (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 AD2d 557, 562).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact after the moving party establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Luchin v. Dealer Storage Corp. · filed 1999-11-15(b)

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether any of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing a prima facie showing for summary judgment to submit sufficient admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

Soto v. 2101 Realty Co. · filed 1999-11-29(b)

Under the circumstances, after the respondents made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs did not sustain their burden of submitting sufficient admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact, and the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the respondents (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Under CPLR 3212(b), unsubstantiated allegations of negligence are insufficient to defeat summary judgment once the defendants establish their entitlement to it.

Staffin v. Scarsdale Manor Owners, Inc. · filed 2000-01-24(b)

The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated allegations of negligence were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Under CPLR 3212(b), conclusions, expressions of hope, and unsupported allegations cannot defeat a properly made summary judgment motion.

Dunlap v. Levine · filed 2000-04-03(b)

Mere conclusions, expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment properly made by the moving parties (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue; an attorney affirmation without personal knowledge does not suffice.

Fernandez v. City of New York · filed 2000-05-04(b)

Defendant-appellant, in response to plaintiffs prima facie showing that his injuries were caused by the negligent operation of a “hi-lo” vehicle by defendant’s employee, failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to its liability. Indeed, defendant-appellant’s sole submission in opposition to plaintiffs summary judgment motion was an affirmation by its attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts. Accordingly, plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendant-appellant was properly granted (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258).

CPLR 3212 (b) allows a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Bartley v. Accu-Glo Electric Corp. · filed 2000-05-08(b)

Although the defendants never cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, this Court has the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see, QDR Consultants & Dev. Corp. v Colonia Ins. Co., 251 AD2d 641; Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425).

Section 3212(b) requires evidence opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact.

Marconi v. Huber · filed 2000-05-30(b)

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must submit competent evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

Gladding v. Riccobono · filed 2000-06-12(b)

The competent evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this matter (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), evidence opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Longhito v. Klein · filed 2000-06-12(b)

The medical evidence which the plaintiffs in those actions submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion failed to raise any triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), evidence opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Sallusti v. Jones · filed 2000-06-12(b)

The medical evidence that the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), unsworn and unaffirmed medical evidence does not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to summary judgment.

Meric v. Cancela · filed 2000-08-07(b)

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion was neither sworn to nor affirmed to be true under penalty of perjury and thus did not constitute competent evidence (see, Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526). Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]), and the defendants’ motion should have been granted.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact after the movant makes a prima facie showing.

Patel v. Corporate Park Development Associates · filed 2000-08-07(b)

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the icy condition that allegedly caused her to fall (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to award partial summary judgment to the opposing party when deciding a summary judgment motion.

Yellow Lantern Kampground v. Town of Cortlandville · filed 2000-11-28(b)

Ordered that the amended judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs against respondent Suit-Kote Corporation; petition/complaint reinstated, respondent Suit-Kote Corporation’s motion for summary judgment denied, petitioners are awarded partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) annulling (1) the Town of Cortlandville Town Board’s February 17, 1999 negative declaration, ... and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment for a non-moving party when the material facts establish the cause of action.

Ostrowski v. State · filed 2001-01-09(b)

Indeed, in a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), where all the material facts are recited and where it appears that the cause of action has been established, judgment may be directed to the non-moving party.

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact once the moving party makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment.

Reis v. Mystic Transportation, Inc. · filed 2001-01-22(b)

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat Mystic’s prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Section 3212(b) requires evidence opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact.

Soto v. Enterprise Rent A Car · filed 2001-01-22(b)

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a party that did not move for it when the proof warrants that result.

Chase Mortgage Co. v. Fowler · filed 2001-02-07(b)

We search the record and grant summary judgment to defendants (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 111) because, in view of the uncontroverted proof in the record, there is no basis upon which relief might be granted to plaintiff on the complaint (see, Call v La Brie, supra, at 1034-1035).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to offer admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact when the movant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment.

Almar, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance · filed 2001-02-26(b)

The defendant offered no admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of its duty to defend (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Firemen’s Ins. Co. v 860 W. Tower, 246 AD2d 401).

CPLR 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party offers no evidence in response.

Hajar, Inc. v. One Peach Associates · filed 2001-03-26(b)

Additionally, the Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Jay Weiss, since the plaintiff did not come forward with any evidence in response to that defendant’s prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must raise a triable issue of fact.

Rivera v. People's Choice · filed 2001-03-26(b)

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a party who did not move for it.

Dormena v. Wallace · filed 2001-04-02(b)

Although Bailey never cross-moved for summary judgment, this court has the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-112).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court, under appropriate circumstances, to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party.

AIU Insurance v. Unicover Managers, Inc. · filed 2001-04-10(b)

For the same reason, AIG would have been unable to prevail on its remaining cause of action against Unicover, for misrepresentation, and, under the circumstances, we deem the grant of summary judgment in favor of Unicover to have been authorized by CPLR 3212 (b).

Section 3212(b) requires evidence opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact; a physician’s conclusions about restricted motion must be supported by objective tests.

Kallicharan v. Sooknanan · filed 2001-04-16(b)

The affirmation prepared by the plaintiff’s treating physician, which was submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The plaintiff’s physician failed to set forth the objective tests he performed in reaching his conclusions concerning alleged restrictions of motion in the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spines (see, Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79; Smith v Askew, 264 AD2d 834).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Preferred Mortgage Brokers, Inc. v. Byfield · filed 2001-04-16(b)

Furthermore, although the defendants did not cross-move for summary judgment, this Court is authorized by CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and grant summary judgment to a non-moving party (see, Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425; Bartley v Accu-Glo Elec. Corp., 272 AD2d 352).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a party who did not move for it.

Vanegas v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2001-04-23(b)

Although the plaintiff never cross-moved for summary judgment, this Court has the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and award summary judgment to a non-moving party ... Accordingly, summary judgment is granted to the plaintiff declaring that Nationwide is obligated to defend and indemnify its insureds in the underlying action.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

Aquila v. Nathan's Famous, Inc. · filed 2001-06-04(b)

In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit of an engineering expert attesting to the alleged defect (see, Maldonado v Su Jong Lee, supra), or any other evidence that raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party without a cross motion on an issue raised by the motion.

Swersky v. Swersky · filed 2001-09-10(b)

According to CPLR 3212 (b), if “it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a cross-motion.” ... Since there are no disputed issues of fact, summary judgment should be granted; however, it should be granted in favor of the defendant, not the plaintiff, thereby denying a permanent order of protection.

CPLR 3212(b) requires evidence in opposition to summary judgment that raises a triable issue of fact.

Wells v. Lewis · filed 2001-12-03(b)

The only admissible medical evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motions, the affidavit of her chiropractor, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under section 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact after the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment.

Malament v. Vasap Construction Corp. · filed 2001-12-10(b)

In opposition to the cross motion, the defendant third-party plaintiff, Vasap Construction Corp., failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Arctic Metal Products Corp. breached its lease (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607).

Section 3212(b) requires evidence opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact.

Puccio v. Pazienza · filed 2001-12-10(b)

The medical evidence which the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the cross motions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present evidence with probative value showing an unresolved material issue of fact that requires a trial.

Bankers Trust v. McFarland · filed 2002-01-18

The evidence necessary to defeat summary judgment must be more than conclusory self-serving affidavits. It must have probative value sufficient to demonstrate an unresolved material issue of fact which can be determined only at a plenary trial.

Under CPLR 3212(b), evidence opposing summary judgment must be admissible and raise a triable issue of fact.

Greggs v. Kurlan · filed 2002-01-28(b)

In addition, the unsworn magnetic resonance imaging reports submitted by the plaintiff were not in admissible form and, therefore, could not be considered in opposition to the motion (see, Soto v Fogg, 255 AD2d 502). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s medical evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212 (b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party on an issue raised by the motion.

Image Clothing, Inc. v. State National Insurance · filed 2002-02-04(b)

In addition, although the plaintiff did not cross-move for summary judgment, this Court is authorized by CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and grant summary judgment to a non-moving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the court (see, Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429; QDR Consultants & Dev. Corp. v Colonia Ins. Co., 251 AD2d 641, 643).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact after the moving party makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment.

Schlein v. White Plains City School District · filed 2002-03-04(b)

In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the care and supervision afforded by the defendants (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Mirand v City of New York, supra).

Section 3212(b) requires competent evidence to oppose a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment; conclusory and speculative assertions are insufficient.

Franza v. Rugof Realty, Ltd. · filed 2002-04-15(b)

In opposition to the motion, Franza’s conclusory and speculative assertions concerning Skyline’s possible connection to Skyliner Management and any control it might have exerted over the maintenance pit were unsupported by any competent evidence. Thus, they are insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Skerret v Nixon, 290 AD2d 500; Child v Suffolk County Water Auth., 283 AD2d 537; Pryor v Reichert, 265 AD2d 470).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party.

Gateway Detroit Associates, L.L.C. v. Witkoff Group, L.L.C. · filed 2002-08-08(b)

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied and, absent any other viable defense, summary judgment granted to the nonmoving plaintiff on a search of the record pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving defendant on claims that warrant summary judgment for the moving defendant.

Dunphy v. J & I Sports Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2002-08-19(b)

The Supreme Court was authorized to grant summary judgment to the nonmoving defendant on those claims for which summary judgment is warranted in favor of the moving defendant-respondent, Lily Flanagan’s II, Inc., doing business as Lily Flanagan’s (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Once the movant shows entitlement to summary judgment, CPLR 3212(b) requires the opponent to submit admissible evidence of a triable issue of fact.

Lampel v. Sergel · filed 2002-09-23(b)

the plaintiff was required to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the plaintiffs submission in opposition to the motion was not in admissible form and his attorney’s affirmation was of no evidentiary value (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra), he failed to sustain his burden. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Once a movant shows entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must offer evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Savage v. Shah · filed 2002-09-30(b)

... the plaintiffs offered no evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]) that any attempts at snow removal on the part of the defendant rendered the sidewalk more dangerous (see Packes v Bally Total Fitness Corp., supra; see also Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party only on a claim or issue raised by the motions before it.

Bondanella v. Rosenfeld · filed 2002-10-01(b)

Although a court has the *943 authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212 [b]), that authority is “only with respect to a [claim] or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” (Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 430; see Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v Dintino, 198 AD2d 901, 901-902). None of the parties sought summary judgment on the claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) and thus that claim was not the subject of the motions and cross motions before the court.

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party on an issue raised by the motion.

Zinker v. Makler · filed 2002-10-21(b)

...they may raise on appeal the Supreme Court’s failure to grant them that relief because both the Supreme Court and this Court have the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212 [b]; ...).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact.

Boehme v. A.P.P.L.E., A Program Planned for Life Enrichment, Inc. · filed 2002-10-28(b)

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants breached a duty to her or that the breach alleged was a proximate cause of her injuries (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781, 782).

CPLR 3212(b) allows a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party on an issue raised by the motion.

Selter v. MCM Distributors, Inc. · filed 2002-11-04(b)

Although the plaintiffs did not cross-move for summary judgment, this Court is authorized by CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the court (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106; Image Clothing v State Natl. Ins. Co., 291 AD2d 377).

Section 3212(b) permits the court to grant summary judgment to a party that did not appeal when that party is entitled to judgment.

Iafallo v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2002-11-15(b)

Nationwide has not appealed, but contends that it is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), and we agree.

On a summary judgment motion, the opposing party receives the benefit of all possible inferences from the facts.

Beverly Hills P.C. v. Progressive Insurance · filed 2002-12-03

Furthermore, on a summary judgment motion, the opposing party is entitled to the benefit of all possible inferences from the facts.

On a CPLR 3212 summary judgment motion, the opposing party receives the benefit of all possible inferences from the facts.

Celtic Medical P.C. v. Progressive Insurance · filed 2002-12-03

Furthermore, on a summary judgment motion, the opposing party is entitled to the benefit of all possible inferences from the facts. ... Therefore, the court will infer for purposes of this motion that the plaintiffs assignor, through no fault of her own, did not receive the demands, which would excuse her nonappearance at the examinations.

Section 3212(b) allows a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party on an issue raised by the motion.

Goldstein v. County of Suffolk · filed 2002-12-16(b)

Furthermore, although the defendant County of Suffolk did not move for summary judgment, the Supreme Court and this Court, have the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the court (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429; Image Clothing v State Natl. Ins. Co., 291 AD2d 377, 378; QDR Consultants & Dev. Corp. v Colonia Ins. Co., 251 AD2d 641, 643).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party without a cross-motion when that party is entitled to judgment on an issue raised by the motion.

Giffune v. Kavanagh · filed 2003-02-07(b)

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, if “it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a cross-motion” (CPLR 3212 [b]), where, as here, summary judgment was granted in favor of Kavanagh with respect to the issue that was the subject of the motion (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430).

Once a summary judgment movant demonstrates prima facie entitlement to judgment, the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Walsh v. Altam · filed 2003-03-10(b)

In opposition to the defendant Angel Marrochi’s demonstration of his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Louise Mullen against him, Mullen failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

CPLR 3212 (b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party, even if that party did not appeal.

Whitehead v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc. · filed 2003-04-21(b)

Although the alleged driver of the appellant’s tractor-trailer, Henry Sherwood, also known as “John Doe,” never moved for summary judgment, this Court has the authority, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party, even in the absence of an appeal by that party (see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-112 [1984]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Ten's Cabaret, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 2003-09-09(b)

The court searches the record pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) and grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in Pussycat. Because defendants have moved for summary judgment, the court can grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, who have not moved for this relief for the same reasons as summary judgment was granted in Ten’s.

A party opposing summary judgment under CPLR 3212 cannot rely on unsworn or unaffirmed medical reports because they are inadmissible.

James v. Yoen Wah Rental, Inc. · filed 2003-11-20

The medical reports submitted by plaintiff in opposition to his motion were neither sworn nor affirmed, and therefore inadmissible (see Merrill/New York Co. v Celerity Sys., 300 AD2d 206, 207 [2002]; Charlton v Almaraz, 278 AD2d 145 [2000]).

Under CPLR 3212, a party opposing a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact with competent evidence in admissible form.

Lee v. Eagle Street Associates, Inc. · filed 2003-12-01

In opposition, Lee failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Lee did not offer competent evidence in admissible form to establish any of the causes of action alleged in the complaint.

Section 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present admissible proof that creates a triable question of fact.

Brigandi v. Piechowicz · filed 2004-01-08

However, in order to reach the jury on the proximate cause issue, the plaintiffs must at least scratch the surface and place before the court proof in admissible form so as to create a question of fact. It is this court's view, that given the complete absence of proof on the issue of proximate cause, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden and create a triable question of fact to defeat summary judgment.

A party opposing summary judgment must submit admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Staniewicz v. Stop & Shop Super Food Market Co. · filed 2004-01-12(b)

The statement of the alleged eyewitness submitted by the plaintiff was not in admissible form and, in any event, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to produce admissible evidence of a disputed material fact requiring trial.

Michele M. v. Board of Education · filed 2004-01-15(b)

To defeat JHHA’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs must produce evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the existence of a disputed issue of material fact sufficient to require a trial (CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to submit evidence raising a question of fact requiring a trial.

Brooks v. M&T Bank · filed 2004-02-18

In this summary judgment motion, the burden is upon the Plaintiff Customer to submit evidence that raises a question of fact requiring a trial regarding whether the Defendant Bank failed to act reasonably ( see CPLR §3212).

Affidavits opposing summary judgment must contain facts grounded in personal knowledge; unsupported assertions lack probative value.

Castro v. New York University · filed 2004-03-04(b)

The affidavits submitted by plaintiff fail to assert facts from which personal knowledge of the reasons for plaintiffs demotion may be inferred. As such, these affidavits lack any probative value (CPLR 3212 [b]; see Kalil v Zissis, 281 AD2d 397 [2001]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party when the record supports that judgment.

Potter v. North Country Insurance · filed 2004-06-14(b)

Although the court had the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party under CPLR 3212 (b), the record in this case does not support an award of summary judgment to North Country.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Rigby v. David Share Associates · filed 2004-06-14(b)

Plaintiff, in response to London’s motion, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record on a summary judgment motion and grant judgment to a nonmoving party without a cross-motion.

Carroll Street Properties v. Puente · filed 2004-06-14(b)

Upon such motions, the court may search the record and as a matter of law direct judgment in favor of any party. “If it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a cross-motion.” (CPLR 3212 [b].) ... However, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) the court grants summary judgment in favor of the respondents.

A party opposing summary judgment cannot raise a triable issue of fact with conclusory, unsupported assertions.

Grosof v. Goforth · filed 2004-10-04

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3212). The defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and unsupported assertions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Hoffman v Unterberg, 9 AD3d 389 [2004]; Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d 499, 500-501 [2001]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires summary judgment affidavits to rest on personal knowledge; an attorney’s hearsay affirmation does not raise a triable issue.

Matter of P.E.G. · filed 2004-12-13(b)

The affidavits submitted either in support or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment must be upon personal knowledge by a person having knowledge of the facts. ... The instant Affirmation in Opposition by the Father's attorney contains only hearsay by the attorney.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party on a common issue of law.

Best v. MetLife Auto & Home Insurance · filed 2004-12-16(b)

For all the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that, in action No. 1, the motion of defendant MetLife Auto and Home Insurance Company for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) dismissing the action on the ground that the plaintiffs lack legal capacity to sue is in all respects granted; and it is further ordered that, in action No. 2, upon searching the record pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), summary judgment dismissing the action is granted to defendant Better Homes Depot, Inc.

Section 3212(b) allows summary judgment when the opposing party fails to present competent evidence raising a material, triable question of fact.

Wechsler v. People · filed 2004-12-23(b)

Moreover, plaintiffs failed to oppose defendant’s evidentiary showing demonstrating plaintiffs’ inability to make a prima facie showing with competent evidence raising a material, triable question on this claim, entitling defendant to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; Aubuchon Realty Co. v Cohen, supra).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to show facts sufficient to require a trial.

Root v. Eastern Refractories Co. · filed 2004-12-30(b)

Plaintiff, however, met his burden of showing facts sufficient to require a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

CPLR 3212 (b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party only on claims or issues the moving party raised and addressed.

WFR Associates v. Memorial Hospital · filed 2005-01-13(b)

While a court has the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212 [b]), such authority is limited to claims or issues raised and addressed by the moving party (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 430 [1996]). Here defendants sought dismissal on a number of grounds, but none of them raised the issue of whether the restriction was an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

A party opposing summary judgment must show facts sufficient to require a trial on an issue of fact.

Bond v. Giebel · filed 2005-01-13(b)

It is well settled that “to defeat a motion for summary judgment the opposing party must ‘show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact’ ” (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980], quoting CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212 (b) permits an appellate court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonappealing party.

Nelson v. Sweet Associates, Inc. · filed 2005-02-03(b)

We grant this relief to all defendants, including Sweet Associates under our authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonappealing party (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Green Harbour Homeowners’ Assn. v G.H. Dev. & Constr., 307 AD2d 465, 469 n 2 [2003], lv dismissed 100 NY2d 640 [2003]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party on a cause of action or issue that was the subject of the motion.

Cortez v. Countrywide Insurance · filed 2005-04-18(b)

Although the defendant did not move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff was precluded from maintaining this action, this Court has the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to a cause of action or issue that was the subject of the motion before the Supreme Court (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1996]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-111 [1984]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party that establishes its entitlement when the opposing party raises no triable issue of fact.

Town of Goshen v. Serdarevic · filed 2005-04-18(b)

However, since the plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment to the extent of enjoining the defendants from placing any obstructions or impediments within the bounds of the roadway, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard, upon searching the record, summary judgment to the plaintiff to that extent is appropriate.

CPLR 3212(b) permits summary judgment for a nonmoving party when the motion presents the issue, but an appellate court cannot grant that relief to a party whose own motion was denied unless that party cross-appealed.

Ames v. Norstar Building Corp. · filed 2005-06-10(b)

While we have the power pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party where the issue was presented by the motion (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1996]), defendants here moved unsuccessfully for the relief now sought. In the absence of a cross appeal, we cannot reach the issue (see Matijiw v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 292 AD2d 865, 866 [2002]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party on an issue raised by a pending motion without a cross motion.

Kaferstein v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2005-09-20(b)

Thus, since the motions of defendants and General both dealt with their potential liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), this court would be authorized to grant summary judgment to plaintiff under that section without the necessity of a cross motion.

CPLR 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present sufficient evidentiary facts; mere conclusions are insufficient.

508 West 149th Street Corp. v. Bodie · filed 2005-11-23

In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opponent must set forth sufficient evidentiary facts. Mere conclusions are insufficient.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonappealing party where warranted, but that party must demonstrate entitlement to judgment.

Lang v. Carroll · filed 2005-12-22(b)

While we recognize that, “where warranted, this Court has the power to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonappealing party,” we conclude that defendant failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment herein (Mohawk Val. Ski Club v Town of Duanesburg, 304 AD2d 881, 884 n 4 [2003]; see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party when the record justifies it.

A.B. Medical Services PLLC v. New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. · filed 2006-03-07(b)

While defendant did not move for summary judgment dismissing this claim on these grounds, the court has authority to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party if justified by the record. (CPLR 3212 [b].) Accordingly, plaintiff, G.A. Physical Therapy P.C.’s claim for $208.25 is dismissed.

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to offer sufficient proof to defeat the movant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment.

Pidwell v. Duvall · filed 2006-04-06(b)

Next, we agree with Supreme Court that defendant failed to come forth with sufficient proof as to its defense of fraud to defeat plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]; First Union Natl. Bank v Weston, 261 AD2d 668, 669 [1999]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party without prior notice. After a motion to dismiss, the court may do so only if a party requested summary judgment, the parties deliberately pursued that course, or they understood the issue was solely legal.

Backer v. Bouza Falco Co. · filed 2006-04-11(b)

CPLR 3212 (b) authorizes the Supreme Court, upon a motion for summary judgment, to search the record and grant a nonmovant summary judgment without giving prior notice to the parties (see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106 [1984]). Where a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211, however, the court may only exercise its authority under CPLR 3212 (b) if one of the parties specifically requests summary judgment, the parties deliberately chart a summary judgment course, or the parties appreciated that the issue is exclusively one of law (see Barclay Arms v Barclay Arms Assoc., 74 NY2d 644 [1989]; cf. Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506 [1988]; Moutafis v Osborne, 18 AD3d 723 [2005]; Shabtai v City of New York, 308 AD2d 532 [2003]).

Section 3212(b) allows a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party on an issue raised by the motion.

Murray v. Murray · filed 2006-04-18(b)

Although the defendant did not move for summary judgment, the Supreme Court had the authority pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the court (see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429 [1996]; Goldstein v County of Suffolk, 300 AD2d 441 [2002]; Image Clothing v State Natl. Ins. Co., 291 AD2d 377, 378 [2002]).

Under CPLR 3212, a conclusory expert affidavit that fails to rebut the movant’s showing of no issue of fact cannot defeat summary judgment.

Wager v. Hainline · filed 2006-05-02

The conclusory assertions of the plaintiffs’ medical expert are simply insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 [2002]; Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525 [1991]; Marone v Gopinathan, 267 AD2d 216 [1999]; Dachille v Good Samaritan Hosp., 207 AD2d 373 [1994]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Nassau Point Property Owners Ass'n v. Tirado · filed 2006-05-16(b)

Although the plaintiff did not move for summary judgment, under these circumstances, we exercise our authority to search the record and award the plaintiff summary judgment ... (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425 [1996]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106 [1984]; Morelli v Giglio, 143 AD2d 986 [1988]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a party opposing the motion.

Blumberg v. Albicocco · filed 2006-06-13(b)

... to CPLR 3212 (b), the court grants summary judgment to plaintiff on these causes of action and declares that the action of the board of directors imposing a fine premised on the garage sale was null and void as are all subsequent actions intended to collect and enforce the fine.

A party opposing summary judgment generally must submit admissible proof or explain its absence. Evidence barred at trial by the Dead Man’s Statute may be considered, but vague hearsay does not establish a prima facie claim.

Rosado v. Kulsakdinun · filed 2006-08-17

The general rule that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212) must submit proof in admissible form or a reasonable excuse for the failure to do so (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]) does not preclude the receipt of evidence otherwise excludable at trial under the Dead Man’s Statute (Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 313, 314 [1972]). However, even according credence to plaintiffs hearsay testimony concerning her husband’s call to his doctor’s office, her evidence is too vague and speculative to support the inference of negligence (see Cole v Swagler, 308 NY 325, 329 [1955] [reasonable inferences must support negligence and proximate cause]). Thus, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of medical malpractice against defendant.

Section 3212 permits a court to grant summary judgment on a particular issue to the party opposing the motion.

Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co. · filed 2006-08-17(b), (e)

Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff is not a real party in interest must, therefore, be denied. Particularly since it is clear from the stipulation that the parties intended that this motion resolve the issue for the pending cases at least, the court grants summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue.

Section 3212(b) allows a court to grant summary judgment to a party that did not request it.

Vigilant Insurance v. Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. · filed 2006-11-14(b)

Although defendant does not request partial summary judgment on this point, this Court has the power to, and hereby does, grant such relief (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Chateau D’ If Corp. v City of New York, 219 AD2d 205, 209-210 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]).

Section 3212(b) permits a court to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party when the claim is before it on a summary judgment motion.

County of Nassau v. Bassen · filed 2006-12-15(b)

Although denominated as a motion to dismiss, defendant’s motion has been addressed by the parties as a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, since plaintiff County has cross-moved for summary judgment, the court may grant such relief to defendant considered as a nonmoving party (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to raise a triable issue of fact, even if the party lacks personal knowledge of the relevant facts.

Harris v. State · filed 2007-01-16(b)

We reject this contention. The State cites no authority for the proposition that the normal rules governing summary judgment motions do not apply to a party lacking personal knowledge of the operative facts, and that such a party need not make any effort to ascertain those facts, through discovery or otherwise.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

M.S.B. Development Co. v. Lopes · filed 2007-03-20(b)

Although the appellants did not move for summary judgment ... dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, under the circumstances, we exercise our authority to search the record and award the appellants summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425 [1996]; Triple M. Roofing Corp. v Farmingdale Union Free School Dist., 26 AD3d 323, 325 [2006]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing summary judgment to offer facts sufficient to require a trial once the movant has established entitlement to judgment.

McDermott v. New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center · filed 2007-07-12(b)

Defendants established prima face entitlement to summary dismissal by submitting affirmations from their medical experts and Dr. Gretz, sufficiently eliminating material issues of fact. In response, plaintiff failed to offer proof in the form of facts “sufficient to require a trial” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is warranted when the opposing evidence fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Dwyer v. Diocese of Rockville Centre · filed 2007-11-07(b)

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion, including the affidavit of their engineering expert, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to show a triable issue of fact.

Baker v. City of Plattsburgh · filed 2007-12-13(b)

As plaintiff did not demonstrate that an issue of fact exists (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), his claims alleging damages due to water runoff were properly dismissed.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to award summary judgment to a party that did not move for it.

Breytman v. Olinville Realty, LLC · filed 2007-12-27(b)

Furthermore, the court had the authority to award summary judgment to the City defendants even though they had not moved for such relief (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) permits a court to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party without a cross motion.

LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Shearon · filed 2008-01-28(b)

However, when making a motion for summary judgment, the movant always runs the risk that the court may search the record, and in the absence of a cross motion, award summary judgment on behalf of the nonmoving party.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment must raise a triable issue of fact.

Mager v. Cooney · filed 2008-04-01(b)

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212, a plaintiff opposing summary judgment need only raise a triable issue of fact, rather than make a prima facie showing of the defendant’s liability.

Demelio v. Playmakers, Inc. · filed 2008-04-08

With this motion, defendant seeks summary judgment of dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3212. ... Plaintiffs burden on this motion is to raise a triable issue, not to make a prima facie showing, as to defendant’s liability; they are not necessarily the same thing. ... Particularly in light of defendant’s showing, the court concludes that, notwithstanding any deficiencies in the expert affidavit, plaintiff has raised a triable issue as to the applicability of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. ... Defendant’s motion is denied.