N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212

CPLR 3212 shifts the burden to the opposing party to present admissible evidence of a factual issue once the moving party shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Siagkris v. K & E Mechanical, Inc. · filed 1998-03-09

Since ABBA presented invoices and other paperwork which documented that it did not perform any repairs on the day of the accident, but rather that the work was performed one month after the plaintiff was injured, ABBA demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue (see, CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560).

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, the opposing party must offer admissible evidence sufficient to require a trial of a factual issue.

Norton v. Cohen · filed 1998-03-16(b)

Once Getty presented a prima facie showing that it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff under the terms of the distributor agreement, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to offer admissible evidence sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; ...).

Each party moving for summary judgment must prove entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Piccione v. 1165 Park Avenue, Inc. · filed 1998-08-03(b)

Each party moving for summary judgment must prove his, her or its entitlement thereto as a matter of law, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988]). This burden of proof was sustained by Plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 cause of action.

On a summary judgment motion, the moving party must first show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; only then must the opposing party produce admissible evidence of a material triable issue.

Babjeck v. Smalis, Inc. · filed 1998-08-10

It is well settled that on a motion for summary judgment the moving party has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Only when the initial burden is met does the burden shift to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof, also in admissible form, to raise material triable issues of fact requiring trial of the action.

Section 3212(b) places the initial burden on the party moving for summary judgment; a court cannot dismiss claims on grounds the moving papers did not address.

Piccinich v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. · filed 1999-01-12(b)

Under such circumstances, it would be not only manifestly unfair to grant summary judgment against plaintiff.for not responding to arguments not explicitly raised, but would also impermissibly shift the initial burden of proof (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 430).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment; the opposing party must then present evidence of a triable issue of fact.

Providian National Bank v. McGowan · filed 1999-02-19

The plaintiff has shown by the submission of affidavits and other documentary evidence a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. ... The burden now shifts to the defendant to tender evidence that there is a triable issue of fact.

Section 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence eliminating material factual issues.

Sullivan v. Greene & Zinner, P. C. · filed 1999-04-09

It is well settled that a proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue(s) of fact from the case.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement and no triable issue of fact remains.

Alvarez v. Jamnick Realty Corp. · filed 1999-04-05(b)

Murtha made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment and no triable issue of fact was raised that he held any interest in the premises so as to render him liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Orlando Alvarez (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563; CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence grounded in personal knowledge or relevant documents.

Rembert v. City of New York · filed 1999-04-12(b)

Under these circumstances, the third-party defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; see also, Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 NY2d 550; Capitaland United Soccer Club v Capital Disk Sports & Entertainment, 238 AD2d 777; City of New York v Grosfeld Realty Co., 173 AD2d 436; cf., Republic Natl. Bank v Luis Winston, Inc., 107 AD2d 581).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is warranted when the movant makes a prima facie showing and the opponent fails to offer admissible evidence raising a triable issue.

Stephen Hirshon, Ltd. v. Coffey · filed 1999-04-12(b)

Scarpanella submitted sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the grant of summary judgment in her favor. The plaintiff failed to offer sufficient admissible evidence to raise a triable issue regarding whether the defendants engaged in negotiations while the listing agreement was still in effect, or whether they engaged in conduct which was designed to avoid the payment of a commission (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

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

Rosario v. City of New York · filed 1999-05-03(b)

Because the City made out a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment and its purported “admissions” formed the sole basis of the plaintiffs’ opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City was a proper party to the action (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Under CPLR 3212(b), proof of the mortgage, note, and default establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment in a foreclosure action.

Sinardi v. Rivera · filed 1999-05-03(b)

The plaintiff established a prima facie case for summary judgment by submitting proof of the mortgage and note and the default of the defendants Ralph Rivera and Lillian Rivera (hereinafter the respondents) (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie showing and the opposing party offers only conjecture.

Meyer v. Guinta · filed 1999-06-14

Since Mary A. Guinta made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs opposition to the motion was little more than conjecture and surmise that she must have negligently repaired the sidewalk, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted as to that defendant.

A defendant seeking summary judgment based on lack of notice must make a prima facie showing that it lacked notice as a matter of law.

Bachrach v. Waldbaum, Inc. · filed 1999-05-10

On a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint based upon lack of notice, the defendant is required to make a prima facie showing affirmatively establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436).

A movant must demonstrate prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Brenner v. New York City Board of Education · filed 1999-06-07(b)

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Edward Trerise for summary judgment because he failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement thereto, and properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended complaint because it simply alleged a new theory of recovery based upon facts contained in the original complaint (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Barraza v Sambade, 212 AD2d 655; Matter of Edwards v Board of Educ., 32 AD2d 690; Masters v Becker, 22 AD2d 118).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to show a triable issue of fact.

Lane v. Beard · filed 1999-10-12(b)

Beard demonstrated her entitlement to judgment in her favor as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). In response, the plaintiff has failed to proffer any evidence to show the existence of triable issues of fact. Under the circumstances, summary judgment was properly granted to Beard.

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

Reeb v. Selnes · filed 1999-11-08(b)

Upon the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs were required to tender sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any of the defendants created the defect in the sidewalk, caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or negligently repaired the sidewalk (see, Alessi v Zapolsky, 228 AD2d 531; Botfeld v City of New York, 162 AD2d 652; see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Since the plaintiffs failed to do so, the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment are granted.

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to make a prima facie showing, with admissible evidence, that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Brandoff v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield · filed 1999-08-05(b)

The court may grant summary judgment upon a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence sufficient to eliminate material issues of fact. ... To recapitulate, the court denies plaintiffs motion for summary judgment because he has not established that his patients assigned their benefit rights to him.

Section 3212 requires an indemnitee seeking summary judgment after settling without notice to make a prima facie showing of actual liability and a reasonable, good-faith settlement.

ELRAC, Inc. v. Cruz · filed 1999-11-04

Nevertheless, since plaintiff admittedly failed to notify defendants or the insurer of the underlying claims prior to settlement, it had the burden in a summary judgment motion of making a prima facie showing of: (1) actual liability, to wit: that it would have been liable in the underlying action and that there was no good defense to the liability; and (2) that the underlying settlements, amounting to $8,000, were reasonable and made in good faith.

Under section 3212(b), a defendant's medical evidence can make a prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury.

Lalli v. Tamasi · filed 1999-11-08(b)

The medical evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party seeking summary judgment can make a prima facie showing by establishing that it was not responsible for the alleged hazardous condition.

Brienza v. Town of Brookhaven · filed 1999-11-15(b)

The appellant made out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that it was not responsible for the allegedly hazardous condition which caused the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Doreen Brienza.

CPLR 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

262-64 Higbie Lane, Inc. v. Town Board · filed 1999-12-20(b)

Moreover, in response to the appellant’s prima facie case that the plaintiff did not have an easement over the subject property, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding this question. Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the plaintiff does not have an easement over its property (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Haye v. M.C.F., Inc. · filed 2000-02-07(b)

The Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s motion, as it did not make out a prima facie case that it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Once a summary judgment movant meets its initial burden, CPLR 3212(b) requires the opposing party to show facts sufficient to require a trial of a factual issue.

Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v. Amatex Corp. · filed 2000-02-16(b)

The burden shifted to plaintiff 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). Plaintiff met that burden by submitting the affidavits of former Hercules employees who assert that they observed decedent cutting sheets manufactured by Spaulding containing asbestos fibers (see, Lloyd v Grace & Co., 215 AD2d 177; Reid v Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 AD2d 462, 463; Zankowski v Johns Manville Corp., supra).

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is warranted when the opposing evidence raises no triable issue of fact.

Young v. Augros, Inc. · filed 2000-02-28(b)

However, upon renewal, the Supreme Court should have adhered to its original determination, since none of the purportedly new evidence raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Gadson v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; cf., Motts v Cohen, supra; Brower v TRW Tit. Ins., 233 AD2d 473).

Section 3212(b) requires the party opposing summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact after the movant establishes a prima facie case.

Crouch v. Dewan · filed 2000-03-06(b)

The plaintiffs’ opposition, including the affidavits of chiropractor Dr. Joel Kaplan, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

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

Pritchard v. Perrin · filed 2000-03-27(b)

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

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the moving party makes a prima facie showing and the opposing party offers only conclusory expert allegations that fail to address it.

Fhima v. Maimonides Medical Center · filed 2000-02-28(b)

This evidence made out a prima facie case establishing that the defendants’ conduct did not constitute malpractice (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The conclusory allegations of malpractice set forth in the affidavit sworn to by the plaintiffs’ medical expert, Dr. Arthur T. Davidson, which failed to address Dr. Posner’s concerns, were insufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see, James v Crystal, 267 AD2d 429).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement as a matter of law and the opposing papers fail to raise a triable issue of fact.

Magowitz v. Reeves · filed 2000-05-01(b)

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defendant driver did not owe a duty to the injured plaintiff under the circumstances giving rise to the subject accident (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The papers submitted in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

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

Shabot v. East Ramapo School District · filed 2000-02-28(b)

Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs failed, in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

A summary judgment movant fails to meet its prima facie burden when its own expert’s findings raise triable issues of fact.

Velasquez v. Quijada · filed 2000-02-28

The defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), as the findings of the defendants’ own expert raised triable issues of fact.

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting sufficient evidence that no material fact remains.

Jones v. Mark S. Ortiz Welding & Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2000-04-03(b)

The defendant made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law by offering sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of any material fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Section 3212(b) permits a defendant’s medical evidence to establish a prima facie basis for summary judgment, leaving the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

Hernandez v. Cerda · filed 2000-04-17(b)

The medical evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Under CPLR 3212(b), evidence negating a defendant’s responsibility for an alleged hazard can establish a prima facie case for summary judgment, while speculative opposition fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Barnwell v. Wasserman · filed 2000-05-08(b)

The evidence that the defendants submitted in support of their motion established a prima facie case that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition which was the cause of the plaintiff’s accident (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion would require a jury to speculate as to whether the defendants created the alleged hazardous condition (see, Schafrick v Shinnecock Bait & Tackle Co., 204 AD2d 706) and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires the moving party to make a prima facie showing before the burden shifts to the opposing party to raise a triable issue of fact.

Gill v. City of Mount Vernon · filed 2000-09-18(b)

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion established a prima facie case that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition, and had neither actual nor constructive notice of it (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Richman v John, 272 AD2d 535). The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Cellini v Waldbaum, Inc., 262 AD2d 345).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show that no material issue of fact exists; the opposing party must then produce evidence of a triable issue.

Davenport v. County of Nassau · filed 2001-01-16(b)

Since all of the defendants met their prima facie burden of submitting proof in evidentiary form sufficient to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562), the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant’s prima facie showing shifts the burden to the opponent to produce evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

Badanowski v. Zambrana · filed 2001-02-20(b)

The physicians’ affirmations submitted by the defendants Eric Zambrana and Scott Seltzer in support of their separate motions for summary judgment made out a prima facie case (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The burden therefore shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish that she sustained a serious injury (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Boen v. Ski Plattekill, Inc. · filed 2001-04-16(b)

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the appellant’s motion should have been granted.

Under CPLR 3212(b), once a movant meets its initial burden, the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Orr v. Spring · filed 2001-11-15(b)

The burden then shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact (see, id.).

Once a summary judgment movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must present admissible evidence of a material factual dispute requiring trial.

Gersten v. 111-50 Realty Co. · filed 2001-06-20

The order of the DHCR demonstrates plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In addition, the plaintiff has submitted a detailed calculation of the amount of the excess rent collected. The burden then shifts to the defendant to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require trial of the action.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a defendant meets the initial summary judgment burden by proving that a release bars the action.

Kavoukian v. Kaletta · filed 2002-05-02(b)

Turning to the merits of defendant’s motion, we conclude that defendant met his initial burden on a summary judgment motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) by submitting proof establishing that the doctrine of release bars, plaintiff from maintaining this action.

After a summary judgment movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Bubaris v. St. John's Queens Hospital · filed 2002-06-10(b)

The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to this showing (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant's proof shifts the burden and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Shaw v. Baldowski · filed 2002-06-25

Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff failed to raise any triable issues of fact concerning her retaliation claims and that the State is alternatively entitled to summary judgment in its favor dismissing such claims.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before the burden shifts to the opposing party to show a genuine issue of material fact.

Michael G. v. Athletic Alliance Risk Purchasing Group · filed 2002-08-14(b)

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, he establishes a defense sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law. (CPLR 3212 [b].) The burden then shifts to plaintiff to provide evidence in admissible form sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

Under CPLR 3212(b), once a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must submit sufficient admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ingram v. Doe · filed 2002-07-22(b)

Upon the appellant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff Carolyn Ingram did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the burden shifted to Ingram to submit sufficient admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Grossman v Wright, 268 AD2d 79).

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must present a triable issue of fact.

In re Hannah UU. · filed 2002-12-26(b)

With petitioner having presented a prima facie case warranting judgment to be granted in its favor as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562), the burden shifted to respondent to present a triable issue of fact.

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

Saggio v. Duvier · filed 2002-11-18(b)

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a supported showing that the opposing party cannot prove an essential element shifts the burden to that party to raise a triable issue of material fact.

Travelers Property Casualty v. Gomez Supermarket · filed 2003-04-01(b)

The conclusions of defendants’ fire investigator, accompanied by a recitation of the factual grounds on which the conclusions were based (Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 451 [1997]; Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 533-534 n 2 [1991]), established prima facie plaintiff’s inability to prove the fire’s origin much less defendants’ liability therefor (Wang v Alexander’s Dept. Store, 247 AD2d 467 [1998]), thereby shifting to plaintiff the burden to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, the opposing party must establish a triable issue of fact.

Torns v. Samaritan Hospital · filed 2003-05-29(b)

With Supreme Court properly concluding that defendant met its prima facie burden on the issues of both vicarious liability and malpractice, the burden shifted to plaintiff to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Gong v Gjoni, 294 AD2d 648, 649 [2002]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must show a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.

Hayes v. City of Amsterdam · filed 2003-12-18(b)

The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that a triable issue of fact existed so as to defeat the motion.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before the opposing party must produce admissible proof of a triable issue.

Stickles v. Fuller · filed 2004-01-13

On a motion for summary judgment the moving party has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Only when the initial burden is met does the burden shift to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof, also in admissible form, to raise material triable issues of fact requiring trial of the action.

A summary judgment movant must first establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidentiary facts; only then does the burden shift to the opposing party.

Lociciero v. Princeton Restoration · filed 2004-03-08

It is well settled that on a motion for summary judgment, movant has the initial burden of setting forth evidentiary facts sufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]; Fabbricatore v Lindenhurst Union Free School District, 259 AD2d 659 , 686 NYS2d 822 [1999]). Only then does the burden shift to the opposing party to come forward with proof ( see, Piccolo v DeCarlo, 90 AD2d 609, 456 NYS2d 171 [1982] ).

On summary judgment, a defendant’s sufficient showing shifts the burden to the plaintiffs to present evidence of a triable issue of fact.

Sanders v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2004-07-01(b)

While the distance between those locations and Ticonderoga renders the reports of questionable evidentiary value (cf. Schleifman v Prime Hospitality Corp., 246 AD2d 789, 790 [1998]), we, nevertheless, find that the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiffs as to the issue of the timing of the storm (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under § 3212(b), once the moving party makes a sufficient showing, the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Macri v. Smith · filed 2004-11-18(b)

Finding such proffer sufficient (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), the burden shifted to plaintiffs to demonstrate a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 562).

Under CPLR 3212, summary judgment must be denied when the opposing party demonstrates a material triable issue of fact.

Deep Blue Ventures, Inc. v. Manfra, Tordella & Brookes, Inc. · filed 2004-11-30

Here, the plaintiff Deep Blue, by citing the agreement’s payment terms, satisfied its burden of producing evidence which, if uncontroverted, is sufficient to warrant judgment in its favor as a matter of law. However, the defendant Manfra Tordella has met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a material triable issue of fact.

Once a defendant establishes entitlement to summary judgment, CPLR 3212(b) requires the plaintiff to produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

Miller v. Kliger · filed 2005-02-14(b)

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

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

Bell v. Savig · filed 2005-03-14(b)

The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact. In response, the defendant failed to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; R/S Assoc. v New York Job Dev. Auth., 98 NY2d 29, 33 [2002]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Davis v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, N.Y., 13AD3d 331; Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. v Plainedge Union Free School Dist., 12 AD3d 395 [2004]; O’Malley v Hill & Dale Prop. Owners, 299 AD2d 400, 402 [2002]; Krakowska v Niksa, 298 AD2d 561, 562 [2002]).

Under section 3212, once a summary judgment movant meets its initial burden, the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Yuen v. 267 Canal Street Corp. · filed 2005-07-13

Accordingly, 267 has met its initial burden of demonstrating that it provided adequate security in the building given the unforeseeable nature of the assault. Under the circumstances, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to submit sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard.

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

Re-Max Classic Realty, Inc. v. Berger · filed 2006-01-24(b)

After the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Once a movant establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must produce admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Udell v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States · filed 2006-01-31(b)

The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then offer admissible evidence of a material issue requiring trial.

O'Lear v. Boy Scouts of America · filed 2006-10-10

A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the movant establishes a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opponent must raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion.

Blenheim LLC v. Il Posto LLC · filed 2006-11-24(b)

I also find, based on the proof submitted, that petitioner has established, prima facie, its entitlement to partial summary judgment on its petition. The burden thus shifts to respondent to raise a triable issue sufficient to preclude summary judgment in favor of petitioner.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish its claim or defense with admissible evidence; the burden then shifts to the opposing party.

Akita Medical Acupuncture, P.C. v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. · filed 2006-12-14(b)

Generally speaking, to obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish its claim or defense by the tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the court, as a matter of law, in directing judgment in its favor (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party.

Section 3212 requires the party seeking summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then present admissible evidence of a disputed fact.

World-Link, Inc. v. MeZUN.COM, Inc. · filed 2006-12-22

In order to obtain summary judgment, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to establish the existence of admissible evidence sufficient to raise a disputed issue of fact (Cohen Tauber Spievak & Wagner, LLP v Alnwick, 33 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2006]).

Section 3212(b) requires the opposing party to produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact once the moving party establishes a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Hujus v. V. Paulius & Associates · filed 2007-03-20(b)

After the defendant Martin-Brower Co. (hereinafter the defendant) established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the proof establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no factual issue requires trial.

Pineda v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. · filed 2007-01-10(b)

Because plaintiffs could not produce anything in opposition to defendants’ request to dismiss, the court granted defendants summary judgment on all claims that relate to ES. 24. ... Pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), a court grants summary judgment if “upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.”

Under CPLR 3212(b), a defendant’s showing of no notice shifts the burden to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

Tenkate v. Tops Markets, LLC · filed 2007-03-01(b)

Finding this proffer sufficient to establish a lack of notice as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Londner v Big V Supermarkets, supra at 1123; Sosa v Golub Corp., supra at 763; Richardson-Dorn v Golub Corp., 252 AD2d 790, 791 [1998]; compare Mancini v Quality Mkts., 256 AD2d 1177, 1178 [1998]), the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact (see Mueller v Hannaford Bros. Co., supra at 819; Sosa v Golub Corp., supra at 764).

Section 3212(b) shifts the burden to the opposing party to raise a triable issue of fact once the movant shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Devine Real Estate, Inc. v. Brennan · filed 2007-07-05(b)

Having sustained their initial burden of showing an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Carpenter v Morrette, 36 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2007]), the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

On a CPLR 3212 motion, once the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the opponent must show a genuine issue of material fact.

Brown Bark I, L.P. v. Metroflor Transportation Services, Inc. · filed 2007-11-30

With the plaintiff having sustained its prima facie burden entitling it to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the defendants to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562.) Defendants have not met this burden, although they have raised some noteworthy issues.

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the movant makes a prima facie showing, the opposing party must demonstrate a triable issue of fact.

In re Christopher Anthony M. · filed 2007-12-26(b)

Since the evidence submitted by the father in support of his motion for summary judgment was sufficient to rebut the statutory inference and to establish, prima facie, that his conduct was neither negligent nor abusive (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i], [ii]), the burden shifted back to the petitioner to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v James M., 83 NY2d 178, 182 [1994]; see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires the summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment before the burden shifts to the opposing party to show a material factual issue.

Knolls of Glen Head Owners Corp. v. City of Glen Cove · filed 2008-01-11(b)

If a sufficient prima facie showing is made, however, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party. To defeat the motion for summary judgment the opposing party must come forward with evidence to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact requiring a trial.

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the moving party establishes entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must raise a question of fact requiring a trial.

Cantwell v. Rondout Savings Bank · filed 2008-10-16(b)

Based on the foregoing, defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment, shifting the burden to plaintiff to raise a question of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068 [1979]).

Once a movant meets its initial summary judgment burden, CPLR 3212(b) requires the opposing party to raise a question of fact requiring trial.

Elsey v. Clark Trading Corp. · filed 2008-12-31(b)

Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 [1979]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment; the opposing party must then raise a triable question of fact.

Rossal-Daub v. Walter · filed 2009-01-15(b)

Based upon the record evidence, we agree with Supreme Court that defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), thus shifting to plaintiff the burden of raising a question of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068 [1979]). ... Therefore, defendants’ motion should have been denied.

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, the opposing party must produce sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact.

Dantini v. Cuffie · filed 2009-02-10

the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant’s prima facie showing shifts the burden to the opposing party to demonstrate a factual issue requiring trial.

Silverberg v. Palmerino · filed 2009-04-02(b)

She met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to judgment on that basis, thus shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate a question of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068 [1979]).

Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, CPLR 3212(b) shifts the burden to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

Brown v. Haylor, Freyer & Coon, Inc. · filed 2009-03-12(b)

These submissions were sufficient to establish defendants’ prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Elsey v Clark Trading Corp., 57 AD3d 1330, 1331 [2008]; Torosian v Bigshbee Vil. Homeowners Assn., 46 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2007]; Dickerson v Troy Hous. Auth., 34 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2006]), thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact with admissible evidence.

Hesse Construction, LLC v. Fisher · filed 2009-04-09(b)

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment for the unpaid balance of the work performed by producing, among other things, work estimates signed by the parties, billing statements, and evidence demonstrating that the agreed-upon work was performed and that a portion of the work went unpaid.

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

Berson v. Rosada Cab Corp. · filed 2009-05-05(b)

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to serious injury (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Hagan v Thompson, 234 AD2d 420 [1996]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant’s prima facie showing shifts the burden to the opposing parties to present evidence raising a factual issue.

Dominguez v. Fontanella · filed 2009-07-31(b)

Fontanella’s evidence shifts the burden to plaintiff, the passenger, and codefendant, the owner and driver of the vehicle behind hers, to present a reason attributable to Fontanella for codefendant’s failure to maintain a safe distance behind her vehicle.

Under CPLR 3212(b), sufficient evidence supporting summary judgment shifts the burden to the opposing party to establish a triable issue of fact.

Illian v. Butler · filed 2009-10-29(b)

In addition, they submitted plaintiffs’ testimony that, in numerous previous interactions with Sadie, they had not known her to bite or threaten anyone and had never expressed concern about her to defendants (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Rose v Heaton, 39 AD3d 937, 938 [2007]; Campo v Holland, 32 AD3d 630, 631 [2006]; Brooks v Parshall, 25 AD3d at 854). This evidence was sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiffs to establish the existence of triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), once a party establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must submit admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

Gholizadeh v. Keifer · filed 2009-10-22(b)

Accordingly, plaintiffs established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, shifting the burden to defendants to submit competent evidence in admissible form demonstrating the existence of triable issues of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Quinn v Depew, 63 AD3d 1425, 1428-1429 [2009]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant who establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment shifts the burden to the opposing party to raise a triable issue of fact.

Beglin v. Hartwick College · filed 2009-11-12(b)

This evidence was sufficient to establish defendant’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thus shifting the burden to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068 [1979]).

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

Wild v. Hayes · filed 2009-12-17(b)

Thus, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment on his breach of contract claim or to raise any triable issues of fact precluding an award of summary judgment to Hayes on such claim (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068 [1979]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the moving party establishes entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must raise a question of fact requiring a trial.

Yankee Lake Preservation Ass'n v. Stein · filed 2009-12-31(b)

Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326-327 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 [1979]).

Section 3212(b) shifts the burden to the opposing party to show a triable issue of fact once the movant establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment.

Kamp v. Fiumera · filed 2010-01-21(b)

Inasmuch as plaintiff met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by demonstrating that defendant executed the second promissory note and defaulted thereon (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Mastro v Carroll, 296 AD2d 802, 802 [2002]), the burden shifted to defendant to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 [1979]).

Under CPLR 3212, summary judgment is granted when the movant shows entitlement to judgment and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Anonymous v. Anonymous · filed 2010-01-27

The husband in his motion papers has, prima facie, demonstrated his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the petition by evidence showing he did not retain the private investigator for an improper or illegitimate purpose, such as harassment or stalking under the Penal Law, or intend to make improper use of the private investigator’s work product DVD. Upon the failure of the wife to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact that the husband committed a crime or family offense against her or otherwise violated the order of protection, summary judgment dismissing the petition should be granted.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show that no material factual issue remains; the opposing party must then show a triable issue.

Tourneau, LLC v. 53rd & Madison Tower Development LLC · filed 2010-02-26

The landlord has sustained its burden, as movant, of establishing that there are no triable issues of fact in connection with the first cause of action. Tourneau has failed to prove the existence of a material issue, requiring the grant of defendant’s summary judgment motion dismissing the first cause of action. The landlord has failed to sustain its burden of proving entitlement to judgment on the plaintiffs remaining claims.

Once a summary judgment movant meets its initial burden, § 3212(b) requires the opposing party to show a triable issue of fact.

Kearsey v. Vestal Park, LLC · filed 2010-03-25(b)

As such, the burden shifted to plaintiff to come forward with evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Once the movant meets its burden under Section 3212, the opposing party must present admissible evidence of a material factual issue to avoid summary judgment.

Rabinowitz v. Deutsche Bank · filed 2010-05-12

Once this burden is met, the party opposing summary judgment must establish, through admissible evidence, the existence of material issues of fact to preclude summary judgment.

Once a summary judgment movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Benaquista v. Burke · filed 2010-06-10(b)

Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 [1979]).

After the moving party makes a prima facie showing, CPLR 3212(b) requires the opposing party to present competent proof raising a triable issue of fact.

Ziegler v. Serrano · filed 2010-06-17(b)

With the burden shifted to defendant to set forth evidence raising a question of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), she submitted only a memorandum of law wherein she argued that plaintiffs cannot succeed on their adverse possession claim because her husband’s conveyance of the property to them was fraudulent. ... In the absence of any competent proof raising a triable issue of fact as to any of the elements of plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim, summary judgment was properly awarded.

On a summary judgment motion, sufficient evidence from the movant shifts the burden to the opponent to raise a triable question of fact.

Houston v. Hofmann · filed 2010-07-29(b)

Based upon the foregoing, we agree with Supreme Court’s determination that defendant presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden to plaintiff to raise a question of fact requiring a trial (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 326 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Tuna v Babendererde, 32 AD3d at 575).

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

Wolf v. Fairfield Inn · filed 2010-10-26(b)

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party opposing summary judgment need only raise a triable issue of fact on the elements the moving party established prima facie.

Stukas v. Streiter · filed 2011-03-08(b)

This means that if the defendant demonstrates only that he or she did not depart from good and accepted medical practice, the plaintiff need only raise a triable issue of fact as to whether such a departure occurred. The plaintiff is required to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation only in the event that the defendant makes an independent prima facie showing that any claimed departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff s injuries.

Under CPLR 3212(b), once a summary judgment movant makes its initial showing, the opposing party must raise a triable question of fact.

Lewiarz v. Travco Insurance · filed 2011-03-24(b)

Accordingly, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable question of fact as to Sils’ liability (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]).

Once a defendant seeking summary judgment in a legal malpractice action shows that the plaintiff cannot prove an essential element, the plaintiff must raise a factual issue requiring trial.

Dempster v. Liotti · filed 2011-05-24

Once a defendant makes this prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise an issue of fact requiring a trial (see Siciliano v Forchelli & Forchelli, 17 AD3d at 345; Schadoff v Russ, 278 AD2d 222 [2000]).

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

Henriquez v. Inserra Supermarkets, Inc. · filed 2011-11-15(b)

Once MCM Paving made its prima facie showing, “the burden shifted to the plaintiff[s] to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of one or more of the [above] three . . . exceptions” (Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 76 AD3d at 214; see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit evidentiary proof showing no material issue of fact remains; the opponent must then show a triable issue.

Selective Insurance Co. of America v. County of Rensselaer · filed 2011-12-12(b)

Movants have a prima facie burden of submitting proof, in evidentiary form, sufficient to demonstrate that there is an absence of any material issue of fact.

Under CPLR 3212(b), once the summary judgment movant establishes its entitlement to judgment, the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Stone Bridge Farms, Inc. v. County of Columbia · filed 2011-10-27(b)

Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a viable defense to foreclosure (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Matter of Village of Fleischmanns [Delaware Natl. Bank of Delhi], 77 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2010]; Matter of County of Orange [Al Turi Landfill, Inc.], 75 AD3d 224, 236 [2010]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a party seeking summary judgment must first show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then show an issue of fact.

Phoenix Signal & Electric Corp. v. New York State Thruway Authority · filed 2011-12-22(b)

Accordingly, defendant met its initial burden to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, shifting the burden to claimant to demonstrate the existence of issues of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Consola v State of New York, 84 AD3d 1557, 1559 [2011]; Kemper Ins. Cos. v State of New York, 70 AD3d 192, 199 [2009]).

Section 3212 requires the movant to show no triable issue of fact; the burden then shifts to the opponent to raise a factual issue.

Allied Irish Banks, PLC v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Greenwich · filed 2012-04-12

The standard under CPLR 3213 is the same as that under CPLR 3212; to prevail, the plaintiff must show the lack of triable issues of fact. If the plaintiff demonstrates a lack of factual issues, the burden shifts to the defendant to adduce additional evidence or affirmative defenses that raise issues of fact. If the defendant succeeds in showing the persistence of disputed factual issues, summary judgment is inappropriate and the case proceeds to trial.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant who establishes entitlement to summary judgment shifts the burden to the opponent to raise a triable issue of fact.

State v. Slezak Petroleum Products, Inc. · filed 2012-06-14(b)

Thus, plaintiff established its entitlement to partial summary judgment on its claim that defendant is strictly liable as a discharger for all cleanup and remediation costs associated with the contamination, shifting the burden to defendant to raise a triable issue of ... fact with regard to its liability (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendant failed to do so.

Section 3212(b) shifts the burden to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact once a slip-and-fall defendant establishes entitlement to summary judgment.

Decker v. Schildt · filed 2012-11-29(b)

This evidence was sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Raczes v Horne, 68 AD3d 1521, 1522 [2009]; Ennis-Short v Ostapeck, 68 AD3d 1399, 1400 [2009]).

Section 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to demonstrate a factual issue requiring trial.

Universal American Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance · filed 2013-01-07

The party opposing must then demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present admissible proof raising a genuine factual question once the moving party shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; conjecture, speculation or surmise is insufficient.

Schmidt & Schmidt, Inc. v. Town of Charlton · filed 2013-02-21

However, in opposing defendant’s subsequent motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, plaintiff was held to a higher burden; once defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see infra), plaintiff was required to come forward with sufficient admissible proof to raise a genuine question of fact—a burden that, in turn, cannot be satisfied with “conjecture, speculation or surmise” (Oefelein v CFI Constr., Inc., 45 AD3d 1002, 1004 [2007]).

Section 3212(b) requires the party opposing summary judgment to show a triable issue of fact once the movant meets its initial burden.

Sanchez v. Marticorena · filed 2013-02-28(b)

Based on the foregoing, defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the homeowner’s exemption applied, shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Cansdale v Conn, 63 AD3d 1622, 1623 [2009]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), the opposing party’s burden to raise a triable issue of fact arises only after the movant establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment.

Esteves-Rivas v. W2001Z/15CPW Realty, LLC · filed 2013-03-20(b)

Thus, the burden never shifted to the defendants to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Unsupported, conclusory assertions do not establish entitlement to summary judgment.

Kingsley v. Village of Cooperstown · filed 2013-06-06(b)

Finally, absent supporting documentation, plaintiffs’ conclusory claims with regard to the Village’s purported failure to maintain/repair the lane are insufficient to demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment, thus compelling denial of their motion.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant must support its claim or defense with admissible evidence; if it does, the opposing party must show a material issue of fact requiring trial.

Goaltex Corp. v. Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired - Good Will Industries of Rochester, Inc. · filed 2014-01-06(b)

Generally speaking, to obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish its claim or defense by the tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the court, as a matter of law, in directing judgment in its favor. (CPLR 3212 [b].) ... In sum, defendant has made out its prima facie showing supporting judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiff has failed to rebut that showing, nor has it made out its own prima facie case that it is entitled to payment for the merchandise it decided to order for defendant.

Section 3212(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to establish its claim or defense sufficiently to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp. · filed 2014-03-27(b)

A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that “the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in the moving party’s favor (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Horn v. Toback · filed 2014-04-16

In our opinion, defendant thus established, prima facie, his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for willful misrepresentation.

Section 3212 requires the party seeking summary judgment to establish entitlement to judgment with admissible proof; the opposing party must then raise a material issue of fact.

Troup v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. · filed 2014-04-24

The burden on a motion for summary judgment rests initially upon the moving party to come forward with sufficient proof in admissible form to enable a court to determine that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If this burden cannot be met, the court must deny the relief sought (CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). ... As defendants have met their burden on their motion, the burden shifts to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

Under CPLR 3212, a movant that establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law is entitled to summary judgment if the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

184 Joralemon, LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC · filed 2014-05-07

Here, the plaintiff and the additional counterclaim defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through, inter alia, submission of evidence that the defendant’s last-minute request for access to the property before the morning closing was not “reasonable notice” under the agreement (see Hegeman v Bedford, 5 AD3d at 633). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see id.; cf. Spagna v Licht, 87 AD2d at 627).

Once a movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must submit evidence raising a triable question of fact.

Gerardi v. Paul W. Harris Funeral Home Inc. · filed 2014-12-19(b)

Based upon the evidence submitted and the law regarding control of disposition of remains, plaintiff has demonstrated that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 3212 [b]). ... The burden then shifts to the defendant to submit evidence which raises a triable question of fact.

A summary judgment movant must present enough evidence to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and eliminate material factual disputes.

Bitonti v. McGeever · filed 2015-01-29(b)

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to present admissible proof establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; if the movant does so, the opposing party must show a material fact issue requiring trial.

Gesuale v. Campanelli & Associates, P.C. · filed 2015-03-25

On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden of coming forward with sufficient proof in admissible form to enable the court to determine that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). If the moving party makes a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, “the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (Garnham & Han Real Estate Brokers v Oppenheimer, 148 AD2d 493, 494 [1989]).

Section 3212 requires the opponent of a properly supported summary judgment motion to present admissible proof of a material factual issue.

O'Gorman v. Prus · filed 2015-03-31

The burden now shifts to plaintiff to provide evidentiary proof in admissible form that a material issue of fact exists. Plaintiff, however, has failed to do so.

Section 3212(b) requires the summary judgment movant to demonstrate the absence of triable facts, even when the opponent bears the burden at trial.

Liz WW. v. Shakeria XX. · filed 2015-05-07(b)

Upon our review of the parties’ submissions, we find that summary judgment was not appropriate. 2 “[S]ummary judgment should only be granted when there are no material facts *1121 disputed sufficiently to warrant a trial” (Matter of La Bier v La Bier, 291 AD2d 730, 732 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 671 [2002] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v James M., 83 NY2d 178, 182 [1994]; Matter of Singer v Levitt, 65 AD3d 634, 634 [2009]). Although petitioner would ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial to show extraordinary circumstances, on this motion, the mother and the father “had the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues of fact regarding the existence of extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Daniels v Lushia, 101 AD3d at 1406), “by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form” (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), that is, “entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” on this threshold issue (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Matter of La Bier v La Bier, 291 AD2d at 732-733; CPLR 3212 [b]). Here, the mother and the father did not dispute that the child had lived with petitioner for a majority of his life, during most of which the father was in jail and had limited contact; the mother had consented to the child living with and being cared for by petitioner during most of those years. The father submitted an affidavit averring that he was an “active parent” from the child’s birth until his 2009 incarceration, that he had unquantified visits with the child in prison, and that he “remained active” in the child’s life despite his incarceration. In our view, given the undisputed circumstances under which the child lived with petitioner for most of his life, we do not find that the mother’s and the father’s conclusory submissions demonstrated the absence of triable issues of fact regarding the existence of extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Battisti v Battisti, 121 AD3d at 1197-1198; Matter of Aida B. v Alfredo C., 114 AD3d at 1049; Matter of Pettaway v Savage, 87 AD3d at 798-799; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562; Matter of Daniels v Lushia, 101 AD3d at 1406; cf. Matter of Curless v McLarney, 125 AD3d at 1194-1195).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant must present sufficient evidence to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material factual issues.

Board of Managers of the 125 North 10th Condominium v. 125North10, LLC · filed 2016-01-26(b)

In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish its cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant a court’s directing judgment in its favor as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing; the opponent must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Lafroscia v. MEPT 5th Avenue, LLC · filed 2016-05-06

Plaintiff has met his prima facie burden for summary judgment. The burden now shifts to defendants to raise triable issues of fact. ... However, defendants have raised an issue of fact regarding whether the alleged violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident.

Once the moving party establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment, the opposing party must produce competent evidence raising a material question of fact.

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. BSB Construction, Inc. · filed 2016-11-03(b)

Once the moving party satisfies its burden by establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce competent evidence that raises a material question of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562; DiBartolomeo v St. Peter's Hosp. of the City of Albany, 73 AD3d 1326, 1326 [2010]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the moving party establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party raises no triable issue of fact.

Beard v. Chase · filed 2017-06-19(b)

Here, Plaintiffs met their initial burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their conversion and replevin claims by establishing that Mr. Beard created and held an ownership interest in the Works, which were taken and sold without his knowledge or consent ( Id. ). In opposition, Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to Plaintiffs' ownership rights to the Works.

Under CPLR 3212(b), proof that invoices were sent and retained without objection satisfies a movant’s initial burden on an account stated claim and shifts the burden to the opposing party to show a triable issue of fact.

Costopoulos v. DeCoursey · filed 2017-06-22(b)

These “submissions satisfied [defendants’] prima facie burden to show that accounts were submitted and retained without objection, thus shifting the burden to [plaintiff] to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact” (Levine v Harriton & Furrer, LLP, 92 AD3d 1176, 1179 [2012]; see CPLR 3212 [b]; Schlenker v Cascino, 124 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 904 [2015]; Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP v Oppitz, 105 AD3d at 1163).

Under CPLR 3212, a party seeking summary judgment on a hell or high water lease must show that a fraud defense lacks merit; factual disputes about fraud and the plaintiff’s notice of it preclude judgment as a matter of law.

Lease Finance Group, LLC v. Qazi · filed 2017-06-28

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff has not demonstrated a right to judgment as a matter of law. Issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to the vendor’s alleged fraud and plaintiff’s alleged knowledge or notice of such fraud.

Section 3212 places the initial burden on the summary judgment movant to present admissible proof warranting judgment; the opposing party must then show a factual issue requiring trial.

Gonick v. Adirondack Research & Mgt., Inc. · filed 2017-09-20

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible proof to support the motion, so as to warrant the Court directing judgment in the movant's favor; the burden then shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate, by competent evidence, the existence of any factual issue requiring a trial of the action ( see Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the moving party makes a prima facie showing and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Romero v. Brathwaite · filed 2017-10-18(b)

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Ceasar sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the accident (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Morales v Theagene, 46 AD3d 775, 776 [2007]). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the moving defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by Ceasar.

Section 3212(b)'s burden-shifting framework applies when a defendant seeks summary judgment on the defense of lack of long-arm personal jurisdiction.

Williams v. Beemiller, Inc. · filed 2018-02-09(b)

To the extent that the parties dispute the applicable standard, we note that the same burden-shifting framework applies where, as here, a defendant moves for summary judgment on the affirmative defense of lack of long-arm personal jurisdiction ( see e.g. Andrew Greenberg, Inc. v Sirtech Can., Ltd. , 79 AD3d 1419, 1421 [3d Dept 2010]; Dreznick v Lenchner , 41 AD3d 769, 770 [2d Dept 2007]; Kesterson v Cambo Fotografische Industrie BV , 30 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2006]; Schultz v Hyman , 201 AD2d 956, 957-958 [4th Dept 1994]).

Under CPLR 3212, a movant must establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before the sufficiency of the opposing papers matters.

Zaharatos v. Coscia · filed 2018-03-14

To the extent that the defendants sought dismissal under CPLR 3212, [*2]they failed to establish, prima facie, entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the corporate plaintiffs. Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' papers submitted in opposition ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr ., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

A party seeking summary judgment must establish prima facie entitlement to judgment before the court considers the opposing papers.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Henderson · filed 2018-07-05

Because the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of standing, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendant's opposition papers ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324).

A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a complaint for lack of standing must make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff lacks standing.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Carter · filed 2018-08-01

On such a motion, "the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied" ( Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas , 131 AD3d 52, 59-60; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ehrenthal, 158 AD3d 668, 670; OneWest Bank, FSB v Berino, 158 AD3d 811; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius, 138 AD3d 650). Here, the defendant failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to either CPLR 3211(a) or CPLR 3212 to warrant dismissal based on a lack of standing ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ehrenthal, 158 AD3d at 670; US Bank N.A. v Cohen, 156 AD3d 844, 846-847; DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v Pittman, 150 AD3d 818, 820: Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius, 138 AD3d 650; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas , 131 AD3d at 59-60).

Under CPLR 3212, a party opposing summary judgment need only raise an issue of fact, regardless of the burden of proof at trial.

Ostad v. Nehmadi · filed 2018-12-13

Regardless of the burden of proof at trial, the party opposing summary judgment need only raise an issue of fact, not an issue of fact as to clear and convincing evidence or some other burden of proof ( see Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v SDI, Inc ., 51 Misc 3d 1230[A], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2016]).

Under CPLR 3212 (b), a summary judgment movant who establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law shifts the burden to the opponent to show a triable issue of fact.

Balgobin v. State of New York · filed 2019-01-03(b)

Therefore, the evidence submitted by defendant "was sufficient to meet defendant's threshold burden of establishing its right to judgment as a matter of law and shifted the burden to claimant to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact" ( Consola v State of New York , 84 AD3d at 1559 [internal citation omitted]; see CPLR 3212 [b]).

A plaintiff seeking summary judgment on liability must make a prima facie showing that the defendant’s affirmative defense lacks merit.

Jimenez-Cruz v. City of New York · filed 2019-03-20(b)

We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, since she failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendants' affirmative defense was without merit ( see CPLR 3212[b]; Rodriguez v City of New York , 31 NY3d 312, 317; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to establish its entitlement to judgment with admissible proof.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon · filed 2019-03-27(b)

A motion for summary judgment "shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party" (CPLR 3212[b]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324). ... In sum, since the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, Gordon's default in the repayment of the subject loan through the submission of evidence in admissible form, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Gordon and dismissing the 20th affirmative defense asserted by that defendant, and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due ( see Fulton Holding Group, LLC v Lindoff , 165 AD3d 1045, 1047-1048; HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal , 142 AD3d at 954).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing before the burden shifts to the opposing party to raise a triable issue of fact.

State of New York v. Jeda Capital-Lenox, LLC · filed 2019-10-24(b)

These submissions were sufficient to satisfy plaintiff's prima facie burden and to shift the burden to defendant to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Section 3212(b) requires a plaintiff seeking summary judgment to establish standing when the defendant's answer is deemed amended to raise lack of standing as an affirmative defense.

GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Coombs · filed 2020-11-25(b)

Accordingly, where, as here, a court deems the defendant's answer amended to include the affirmative defense of lack of standing in opposition to a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must establish its standing in order to be entitled to summary judgment on the complaint ( see CPLR 3212[b]; see generally M & T Bank v Barter , 186 AD3d 698, 700; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Medley , 168 AD3d 959, 960; Security Lending, Ltd. v New Realty Corp. , 142 AD3d 986, 987).

Section 3212(b) permits a counsel’s affirmation to support a summary judgment motion when the supporting papers provide the necessary documentary evidence and no facts are in issue.

Radin v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. · filed 1993-09-23(b)

Plaintiff’s argument that the cross-moving papers are fatally defective pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) is not persuasive. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish the extent of liability insurance Avis is legally required to provide. There are no facts in issue. Additionally, counsel have provided all necessary documentary evidence as supporting papers to their motions. Therefore, the affirmation of Philip Hoffer, Esq. will suffice.

Under CPLR 3212, motion papers may be adequate when an attorney’s affirmation is accompanied by relevant documentary evidence.

Marks v. Elephant Walk, Inc. · filed 1989-12-11

At the outset, we reject the plaintiff’s challenge to the adequacy of the appellant’s motion papers, as the notice of motion was accompanied not only by an attorney’s affirmation, but also by relevant documentary evidence (see, Oían v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to include copies of the answers filed in the action with the supporting papers.

Lawlor v. County of Nassau · filed 1990-10-29(b)

The moving defendants were not entitled to summary judgment as the papers submitted in support of their motion failed to include copies of the answer or answers filed in the action (CPLR 3212 [b]; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338; Somers Realty Corp. v Big "V” Props., 149 AD2d 581; Freeman v Easy Glider Roller Rink, 114 AD2d 436).

A summary judgment motion must include copies of the pleadings filed in the action.

Deer Park Associates v. Robbins Store, Inc. · filed 1997-10-06(b)

The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment, as the papers submitted in support of its motion failed to include copies of the pleadings filed in the action (see, Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692; Somers Realty Corp. v Big “V” Props., 149 AD2d 581; CPLR 3212 [b]; see also, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338; Dupuy v Carrier Corp., 204 AD2d 977).

Section 3212(b) requires summary judgment motion papers to include copies of all pleadings.

Durkin v. IDI Construction · filed 1999-03-24(b)

The motion papers, which are required to contain copies of all pleadings (CPLR 3212 [b]), do not include answers to the counterclaims asserted by JBC against IDI, Vanderbilt and Minskoff; to the counterclaim asserted by Tourneau against Lettera; or to the counterclaim asserted by Tourneau against Electric.

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit copies of all pleadings.

Hamilton v. City of New York · filed 1999-06-01(b)

The papers submitted in support of the motion failed to include copies of all of the pleadings as required by statute (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692; Somers Realty Corp. v Big “V” Props., 149 AD2d 581; Freeman v Easy Glider Roller Rink, 114 AD2d 436).

CPLR 3212(b) requires a summary judgment motion to include the answer, but a court may consider an issue despite its omission when the record contains sufficient evidence.

Potter v. M.A. Bongiovanni, Inc. · filed 2000-04-27(b)

Although the cross motion did not contain a copy of the answer as required by CPLR 3212 (b), because there is sufficient evidence in the record, ... in the exercise of our discretion we are considering the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 issue (see, General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Albany Water Bd., 187 AD2d 894, 895, n).

Section 3212(b) requires a defendant seeking summary judgment to include its answer in its motion papers.

DiSano v. KBH Construction Co. · filed 2001-02-07(b)

Moreover, Widewaters was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to include a copy of its answer in its papers in support of the cross motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Hamilton v City of New York, 262 AD2d 283; Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692).

A summary judgment motion must include a copy of the answer filed in the action; without it, the motion must be denied regardless of its merits.

Husted v. Vermilyea · filed 2002-02-01(b)

The failure of defendant to support its motion with a copy of the answer filed in the action requires denial of the motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Piper, 286 AD2d 903), regardless of its merits (see, Niles v County of Chautauqua, 285 AD2d 988, 989).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to include a copy of its answer; omitting it requires denial of the affected part of the motion regardless of its merits.

Roosa v. Campbell · filed 2002-02-01(b)

The failure of defendant Sugar Creek Stores, Inc. (Sugar Creek) to support its cross motion with a copy of its answer requires denial of that part of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fraud and negligence causes of action, regardless of the merits of the cross motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Piper, 286 AD2d 903, 904).

CPLR 3212 (b) requires a summary judgment motion to include a complete set of the pleadings.

Wider v. Heller · filed 2005-12-05(b)

As accurately observed by the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court, the defendants failed to append a complete set of the pleadings to their motion for summary judgment as required by CPLR 3212 (b).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment motion to include the complaint; failure to include it requires denial regardless of the motion’s merits.

Kyung Mi Lee v. Musso · filed 2006-06-09(b)

The failure of defendant to support his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with a copy of the complaint requires denial of the motion, regardless of the merits of the motion (see CPLR 3212 [b]; D.J. Enters. of WNY v Benderson, 294 AD2d 825 [2002]; Niles v County of Chautauqua, 285 AD2d 988 [2001]).

CPLR 3212 (b) requires a summary judgment motion to include copies of all pleadings in the action.

Matsyuk v. Konkalipos · filed 2006-12-19(b)

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment because the papers she submitted in support of her motion failed to include copies of all of the pleadings in the action as required by CPLR 3212 (b) (see Wider v Heller, 24 AD3d 433 [2005]; Sted Tenants Owners Corp. v Chumpitaz, 5 AD3d 663 [2004]; Hamilton v City of New York, 262 AD2d 283 [1999]; Deer Park Assoc. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443 [1997]; Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692 [1990]).