N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant presents sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Ratner v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. · filed 2010-01-19

Summary judgment may be granted where the movant establishes sufficient evidence which would compel the court to grant judgment in his or her favor as a matter of law (Pucker-man v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). ... The defendant satisfied its burden demonstrating that there is no scientific evidence linking acetaminophen with cirrhosis.

Under CPLR 3212, a foreclosure plaintiff’s mortgage, note, and proof of default can establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, shifting the burden to defendants to support their defenses.

Downey Savings & Loan Ass'n, F.A. v. 162 Grand Newburgh LLC · filed 2010-02-11

Downey’s submission of copies of the mortgage and note, along with the affidavit of John Amador, establishes its prima facie entitlement to foreclosure as a matter of law (see Wasserman v Harriman, 234 AD2d 596, 597 [1996]). ... The burden now shifts to them to come forward with evidence to support their defenses (see Chemical Bank v Bowers, 228 AD2d 407 [1996]).

Section 3212(f) permits summary judgment to be denied as premature when discovery needed to resolve a material issue has not yet occurred.

Abramson v. Eden Farm, Inc. · filed 2010-02-18(f)

Further, since the deposition witness provided by defendant was an employee of the store with no knowledge of the lease or defendant’s obligations thereunder, and no discovery has been had from the landowner, the grant of summary judgment was premature (see CPLR 3212 [f|; First Bank of Ams. v Motor Car *515Funding, 257 AD2d 287, 293-294 [1999]).

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when the opposing party needs appropriate discovery to present its defense.

Jimenez v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2010-03-02(f)

Although summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff should have been denied in light of the existence of the triable issues of fact described above, the award of summary judgment in the plaintiffs favor was premature in any event since NYCM is entitled to raise affirmative defenses, receive responses to its outstanding discovery requests, and conduct additional appropriate discovery relating to the extent of the plaintiffs injuries (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Kiernan v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 65 AD3d 614 [2009]; Desena v City of New York, 65 AD3d 562 [2009]).

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

Riccuiti v. Consumer Product Services, LLC · filed 2010-03-09(b)

In opposition, the defendants failed to submit any admissible evidence which raised a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(a)’s 120-day deadline for summary judgment motions still applies when a case is struck from the calendar after the deadline expires; a late motion requires good cause.

Rivera v. City of New York · filed 2010-05-04(a)

Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, which was made in response to a motion by plaintiff characterized by the motion court as one to restore the action to the calendar, should have been denied as untimely, as defendant failed to show good cause for making the cross motion more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue (CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). At least where, as here, the 120-day time limit had expired before the case was struck from the calendar, we reject defendant’s argument that the 120-day limit does not apply to cases that have been struck from the calendar.

CPLR 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant shows entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

September's Food Systems, LLC v. WIH Hotels, LLC · filed 2010-05-11

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaints in both actions.

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

Abbas v. Salavel · filed 2010-05-25(b)

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

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating material factual issues, regardless of the opposing papers.

Sachs v. Zito · filed 2010-05-25

Therefore, 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, and this is so regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.

CPLR 3212(a) requires denial of an untimely summary judgment motion unless the movant shows good cause for the late filing.

West Broadway Funding Associates v. Friedman · filed 2010-06-01(a)

Accordingly, and in the absence of any showing of “good cause” for the late filing of such a motion (CPLR 3212 [a]), the Supreme Court should have denied the motion (see generally Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]).

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

Davidoff v. Mullokandov · filed 2010-06-08(b)

The evidence which was submitted by the plaintiffs and the Mullokandovs in opposition to the cross motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.

Viahealth of Wayne v. VanPatten · filed 2010-08-12

When deciding a summary judgment motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Section 3212(a)'s 120-day period for moving for summary judgment runs from the filing of the note of issue; the five-day extension for mail service does not apply.

Group IX, Inc. v. Next Printing & Design Inc. · filed 2010-10-21(a)

CPLR 2103 (b) (2), which provides that “where a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period,” is inapplicable to the making of a summary judgment motion, for which the period prescribed by CPLR 3212 (a) is measured not by the service of a paper but by the filing of the note of issue.

CPLR 3212(a) permits a summary judgment motion made within 120 days after the note of issue is filed.

Jackson v. Out East Family Fun, LLC · filed 2010-12-14(a)

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was timely made within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue (see CPLR 3212 [a]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when neither side raises a factual issue and only legal questions remain.

Riccelli Enterprises, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation · filed 2010-12-14

Since neither side has raised an issue of fact, the issues before the court are solely issues of law. The matter is therefore appropriate for summary judgment.

CPLR 3212 permits summary judgment dismissing a claim when the plaintiff concedes she cannot prove it.

Williams v. McNee · filed 2011-01-20

However, this was a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on which plaintiff concedes she cannot prove the claim she was pursuing (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

CPLR 3212 permits a court to grant summary judgment on its own initiative in certain circumstances if the adverse party suffers no substantial prejudice.

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Ass'n v. Garrasi · filed 2011-01-20

Although a court may not generally grant summary judgment sua sponte in the absence of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (see Ressis v Mactye, 98 AD2d 836, 837 [1983]; see generally Vinder v Showbran Leasing & Mgt., 298 AD2d 325, 326 [2002]), in certain circumstances, a court may grant such relief, even if it is not demanded, so long as there is no substantial prejudice to the adverse party (see Berle v Buckley, 57 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2008]; Ressis v Mactye, 98 AD2d at 837).

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

Patten v. Hernandez · filed 2011-01-25(b)

The evidence which the plaintiff presented in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment even when the complaint could also be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7).

Lau v. 7th Precinct of the Police Department · filed 2011-02-22

Summary judgment was properly granted although the complaint could have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Under CPLR 3212, an affidavit establishing a borrower’s payment default can provide sufficient proof for summary judgment in a foreclosure action.

LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Pace · filed 2011-02-28

The affidavit of the plaintiff’s agent regarding the defendants’ default in payment under the terms of their $1,300,000 mortgage loan is legally sufficient and comports with the requirements of CPLR 3212.

Section 3212(f) permits a party to oppose summary judgment as premature by showing that facts essential to justify opposition may exist.

Hampton Hall Pty Ltd. v. Global Funding Services, Ltd. · filed 2011-03-15(f)

Plaintiff has failed to show “that facts essential to justify opposition may exist” (CPLR 3212 [f]). Accordingly, summary judgment is not premature (see Moukarzel v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 235 AD2d 239, 240 [1997]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law before the opposing party must show a triable issue of fact.

Consola v. State · filed 2011-05-12(b)

This evidence was sufficient to meet defendant’s threshold burden of establishing its right to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]) and shifted the burden to claimant 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]).

CPLR 3212(f) does not permit postponing summary judgment based solely on a belief that further discovery might reveal helpful evidence.

Capasso v. Capasso · filed 2011-05-17(f)

The belief that additional discovery might reveal something helpful to her case does not provide a basis pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) for postponing a determination of summary judgment in this case (see Morissaint v Raemar Corp., 271 AD2d 586 [2000]).

Section 3212 supplies the summary judgment standard when a defendant asserts an affirmative defense that, if proved, would entitle it to judgment as a matter of law.

Dynamic Medical Imaging, P.C. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2011-06-16

Defendant is asserting it has an affirmative defense that will, if proved, entitle defendant to judgment as a matter of law. This is the standard for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 ... not dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

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

Goodfellow v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2011-07-14

“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.”

Under CPLR 3212, admissible evidence showing that a defendant did not cause an accident can establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment; the opposition must raise a triable issue of fact.

Vazquez v. Roldan · filed 2011-07-26

Jimenez established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting admissible evidence demonstrating that his double-parked vehicle was not a proximate cause of the accident (see CPLR 3212; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Darmento v Pacific Molasses Co., 81 NY2d 985, 988 [1993]; Gerrity v Muthana, 7 NY3d 834 [2006]; Dauber v Stone, 76 AD3d 699 [2010]; Williams v City of New York, 240 AD2d 734 [1997]). In opposition, no triable issue of fact was raised.

CPLR 3212 permits summary judgment when no material issue of fact remains and judgment can be directed as a matter of law.

MPEG LA, LLC v. Audiovox Electronics Corp. · filed 2011-07-27

CPLR 3212 permits a party to demonstrate that there exists no material issue of fact to be tried and that judgment may be directed as a matter of law; thus, where appropriate, summary judgment provides a significant benefit both to the parties and to the overburdened New York trial courts.

An extension of time to oppose a summary judgment motion does not extend the deadline to file a cross motion for summary judgment after the note of issue.

DiGeronimo v. Fuchs · filed 2011-08-04(a)

The plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment is late. Notwithstanding the parties’ stipulations to allow the plaintiff to oppose the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff s cross motion seeking affirmative relief was still subject to the Thirteenth Judicial District’s 60-day rule in which to file such a motion for summary judgment, after the note of issue was filed.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit admissible evidence establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material factual disputes.

Miloscia v. B.R. Guest Holdings LLC · filed 2011-08-15(b)

It is well settled that to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.

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

Young v. Campbell · filed 2011-08-23

Moreover, the defendants Martha Carlin, Child and Family Psychological Services, PC., Jane Kelly, Loma Bosak, Tara O’Hare, and Danielle Seidman established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the fifth and seventh causes of action on the ground of judicial immunity. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show that no material factual issue remains; the opponent must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Butler v. Shorefront Jewish Geriatric Center, Inc. · filed 2011-09-14

Plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion for summary judgment because the submissions consisted entirely of conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations.

Section 3212(a) permits a court to set a summary judgment motion deadline measured from the filing of the note of issue.

Deberry-Hall v. County of Nassau · filed 2011-10-04(a)

As such, the County’s summary judgment motion was untimely pursuant to the 60-day deadline set forth in the certification order (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 727 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Castro v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 74 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2010]).

CPLR 3212 requires a party seeking summary judgment to establish its prima facie entitlement with proof in admissible form.

Jamaica Medical Supply, Inc. v. NY Central Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2011-10-11

With respect to defendant’s alternative ground for dismissal, we find that defendant did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on its lack of coverage defense “premised on the fact or founded belief that the alleged injury does not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]), as the proof offered in support of this branch of its motion seeking summary judgment was not in admissible form (see LMS Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 141 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51072[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 50, 52 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]).

Section 3212(a) requires a summary judgment motion filed more than 120 days after the note of issue to have court leave for good cause shown.

Derby v. Bitan · filed 2011-11-15(a)

CPLR 3212 (a) provides that a motion for summary judgment may not be made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue “except with leave of court on good cause shown.”

Section 3212(a) starts the 120-day period for a summary judgment motion when the note of issue is filed; a late movant must give a satisfactory explanation.

Luciano v. H.R.H. Construction LLC · filed 2011-11-17(a)

Thus, plaintiffs filing of the note of issue started the running of the 120-day period, and the insurer’s “failure to appreciate that its motion was due ... is no more satisfactory than a perfunctory claim of law office failure” (Giudice v Green 292 Madison, LLC, 50 AD3d 506 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Section 3212(a) requires a motion for summary judgment to be filed no later than 120 days after the note of issue is filed.

Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc. · filed 2011-12-15(a)

The record demonstrates that plaintiffs filed the note of issue on May 8, 2009. This required the City (defendant) to file a motion for summary judgment no later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, i.e., September 5, 2009 (CPLR 3212 [a]). However, because September 5th was a Saturday, and Monday, September 7th, was Labor Day (see General Construction Law § 25-a [1]), the motion defendant served on September 8, 2009, was timely.

A party is entitled to summary judgment when it establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Vecere v. Estate of Berle · filed 2012-01-10

Additionally, the plaintiff established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint by demonstrating that the Estate wrongfully canceled a contract for the sale of real property, and retained the plaintiffs down payment. ... In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Section 3212(b) permits a court to award summary judgment to a nonmoving party.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Ilardo · filed 2012-03-05(b)

In view of the foregoing, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaims is denied and reverse summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), is awarded to the plaintiff.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must then show a triable issue of fact.

Filstein v. Bromberg · filed 2012-04-09

A movant seeking summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact. ... Here, the husband has satisfied his burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether the no-divorce clause of the separation agreement violates public policy and is thus unenforceable. ... The wife, in opposition, has failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, that portion of the husband’s motion for partial summary judgment must be granted.

Section 3212 shifts the burden to the party opposing summary judgment once the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Acadia 1 Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America · filed 2012-04-23

Therefore, the court finds that, by citing the 12-month limitations period, ICNA has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, and the burden shifts to Acadia to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact.

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when relevant discovery remains outstanding.

Cooke v. City of New York · filed 2012-05-08(f)

In light of the outstanding discovery noted above, the grant of summary judgment dismissal was premature (see CPLR 3212 [f]).

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

Wolfe v. Irving Tissue, Inc. · filed 2012-05-31(b)

As neither Irving’s solicitation nor North Country’s bid included indemnification or insurance provisions, in our view, North Country satisfied its initial burden of proof, shifting the burden to Irving to present evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment with admissible evidence; once it does, the opposing party must show a factual issue requiring trial.

NCSPlus Inc. v. WBR Management Corp. · filed 2012-05-31(b)

Where the proponent of the motion makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action (Vermette v Kenworth Truck Co., 68 NY2d 714, 717 [1986]; Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 560, 562).

CPLR 3212 permits an estate administrator to seek summary judgment on the requested estate remedies.

In re the Estate of Kelly · filed 2012-06-18

Initially, this court finds that the petitioner did make proper application; originally through a petition filed under SCPA 2103 and then through a motion under CPLR 3212, both of which are proper avenues for the remedies being sought.

A summary judgment motion made within 60 days after the filing of the note of issue is timely under the applicable court rule.

Pevzner v. 1397 E. 2nd, LLC · filed 2012-06-20(a)

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the motion was timely ... made within 60 days after the filing of the note of issue (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules, part C, rule 6 [formerly rule 13]), and the Supreme Court providently reviewed the unsworn deposition transcripts submitted in support of the motion, since they were certified by the reporters and the plaintiffs did not challenge their accuracy (see Zalot v Zieba, 81 AD3d 935 [2011]; see also Rodriguez v Ryder Truck, Inc., 91 AD3d 935 [2012]).

CPLR 3212(a) requires a timely summary judgment motion; a late motion without an excuse may be denied without considering its merits.

In re Singer · filed 2012-10-10(a)

Since the movants failed to offer any excuse for their failure to timely move for summary judgment with respect to whether the circumstances surrounding the sale, and the cotrustees’ awareness and ratification of the sale, evidenced self-dealing (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]), such failure warranted the denial of the motion in its entirety without consideration of the merits thereof (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Rivera v City of New York, 306 AD2d 456 [2003]).

An opponent claiming summary judgment is premature must identify facts essential to its opposition that are in the moving party's control.

Goldmuntz v. Schneider · filed 2012-10-16(f)

Defendant makes no meritorious argument that summary judgment was premature, as she points to no facts essential to her opposition that are in plaintiffs control (see CPLR 3212 [f]), and plaintiff attested that he searched his records and did not have any additional emails or correspondence with respect to this matter, or any surveillance videos or phone records from the period in question.

Under CPLR 3212(b), summary judgment is proper when the movant meets its prima facie burden and the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Suttlehan v. Town of New Windsor · filed 2012-11-07(b)

The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing that they are not obligated to provide lifetime medical benefits to the plaintiff and his spouse, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967-968 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

When a note of issue is vacated while reargument is pending, CPLR 3212(a) may no longer support denying a summary judgment motion as untimely.

Vinueza v. Tarar · filed 2012-11-14(a)

Under the circumstances of this case, upon reargument, the Supreme Court improperly adhered to its original determination denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Williams v Peralta, 37 AD3d 712 [2007]; Farrington v Heidkamp, 26 AD3d 459 [2006]; Johnson v Ladin, 18 AD3d 439 [2005]; Lebreton v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 211 [1999]; Bono v Barzallo, 260 AD2d 592 [1999]).

CPLR 3212(a) requires good cause for a late summary judgment motion.

Giuliano v. 666 Old Country Road, LLC · filed 2012-11-28(a)

Old Country Road and Sutton & Edwards, and Nouveau, failed to demonstrate “good cause” for their respective delays in moving for summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [a]; see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when there are no material triable issues of fact.

Mills v. Standing General Commission on Christian Unity · filed 2013-01-29(b)

Summary judgment is appropriate where the court determines that there are no material triable issues of fact (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when no triable issue remains; the movant must first show entitlement, after which the opponent must show facts requiring a trial.

560 West 165th Street Associates L.P. v. Figueroa · filed 2013-03-06

Pursuant to CPLR 3212, summary judgment is a drastic remedy that deprives litigants of their day in court, and it “should only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues.” ... The movant has the initial burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment and upon such proof, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show that no material issue of fact requires trial and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

MGD Horticultural Services, Inc. v. Hahn · filed 2013-03-19

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must demonstrate to the court the absence of any material and triable issues of fact, thereby entitling such party to judgment as a matter of law.

CPLR 3212(f) does not make summary judgment premature without a showing that discovery may reveal relevant evidence or that essential facts are exclusively within the moving parties’ knowledge and control.

Giovanniello v. E.W. Howell, Co. · filed 2013-03-20(f)

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the granting of summary judgment to Recine and PMC was not premature. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how discovery may reveal or lead to relevant evidence or that “facts essential to opposing [those branches of the respective cross motions of Recine and PMC] were exclusively within” the “knowledge and control” of Recine and PMC (Espada v City of New York, 74 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2010]; see CPLR 3212 [f]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opponent must then raise a triable issue of fact.

Hair Studio 441, Inc. v. Boccone · filed 2013-03-27

We note that since Boccone and Lamm moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, citing to CPLR 3212, the Supreme Court incorrectly treated the motions as having been made pursuant to CPLR 3211. Boccone and Lamm met their respective prima facie burdens of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they did not breach the covenant not to compete contained in the agreement of sale ... In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Section 3212 requires denial of summary judgment when the moving party’s circumstantial evidence permits a reasonable jury to reach either conclusion.

Lancer Insurance v. Saravia · filed 2013-03-29

At best plaintiff makes out a circumstantial case from which a reasonable jury could infer either that this was or that this was not a staged accident. The circumstantial evidence presented in the moving papers is not sufficient to meet the burden for summary judgment.

Section 3212(f) permits a party to oppose summary judgment as premature by showing that discovery may yield relevant evidence or that essential facts are exclusively within the movant’s knowledge and control.

Brabham v. City of New York · filed 2013-04-17(f)

Further, the Delta defendants failed to demonstrate that an award of summary judgment to the plaintiff was premature, as they failed to demonstrate that discovery may lead to relevant evidence or that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Boorstein v 1261 48th St. Condominium, 96 AD3d 703, 704 [2012]; Buchinger v Jazz Leasing Corp., 95 AD3d 1053 [2012]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show that no material factual issue remains.

Oswald v. Oswald · filed 2013-04-25(b)

Having moved for summary judgment on his cause of action to declare the marriage null and void, plaintiff had the burden to submit competent evidence sufficient to demonstrate the absence of all material issues of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]; Wine-grad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Finding that plaintiff failed to meet that burden, we now reverse the grant of summary judgment in his favor.

After answering, defendants may seek dismissal through a summary judgment motion under CPLR 3212 based on CPLR 3211(a) grounds raised in their answers.

Murray Bresky Consultants, Ltd. v. New York Compensation Manager's Inc. · filed 2013-05-09

As Ransom and Jaquith served answers, they properly framed their motions for dismissal as ones for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212) and premised them upon CPLR 3211 (a) grounds that were asserted in their answers (see Mann v Malasky, 41 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2007]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must show a material factual question requiring trial.

Herskovitz v. Steinmetz · filed 2013-05-16(b)

Herskovitz does not set forth any evidence indicating any contrary intention and does not demonstrate that there is any material question requiring a trial in this action as to defendant Miriam.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to present admissible evidence showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no genuine material factual dispute.

In re the Estate of Hennel · filed 2013-06-05

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 in admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any genuine material issues of fact.

A summary judgment motion filed more than 15 months after the note of issue is untimely when the movant lacks an adequate excuse for the delay.

Gorman v. Montefiore Medical Center · filed 2013-06-06(a)

We affirm the order denying summary judgment on the alternate ground that the motion for summary judgment, made more than 15 months after the filing of the note of issue, was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]). Defendant’s purported excuse for the late motion — that a CD of an MRI, which had been lost, was found shortly before defendant made the motion — is inadequate.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the submitted papers establish a party’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Mercy Flight Central, Inc. v. Kondolf · filed 2013-07-02(b)

A motion for summary judgment will be granted when the submitted papers warrant the court directing judgment in favor of a party as a matter of law (CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment on the legal effect of an agreement when the relevant facts are undisputed.

JJLG Motors, Inc. v. SMS-Retail Corona · filed 2013-08-22

In the absence of conflicting or ambiguous facts regarding what was contained within the four corners of the agreement or what other terms may have existed or been contemplated by and between the parties, the question of whether the Wholesale Exclusive Agreement is a franchise agreement is an appropriate question for summary judgment. Based on all of the submissions of the parties as well as all of the foregoing discussion, this court concludes the Wholesale Exclusive Agreement executed by the parties did not create a franchise between them.

Under CPLR 3212(b), a court deciding summary judgment identifies factual disputes rather than resolving them.

O'Neill v. Pinkowski · filed 2013-09-13(b)

The court’s function when deciding a motion for summary judgment is issue finding not issue determination.

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

Moulton v. State · filed 2013-12-26(b)

As claimant established this cause of action “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in [his] favor” (CPLR 3212 [b]), he is entitled to summary judgment on that claim (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) allows summary judgment when there is no triable issue of fact.

State v. Occhiogrosso · filed 1996-03-25(b)

There are no triable issues of fact on the issue of whether the defendants failed to comply with the administrative order dated January 25, 1991, requiring them to remove a deck that they added to their home and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $3,000 (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit admissible proof sufficient to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Webmediabrands, Inc. v. Latinvision, Inc. · filed 2014-03-19(b)

The movant must tender evidence, by proof in admissible form, to establish the cause of action “sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” (CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment only when no triable issue of fact exists.

Capitol Records, LLC v. Harrison Greenwich, LLC · filed 2014-04-14

Summary judgment may be granted only when it is clear that no triable issue of fact exists.

CPLR 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when information needed to oppose the motion remains exclusively within the moving party’s knowledge.

BUTTAFARO v. DAWSON, KELLY A. · filed 2014-06-13(f)

Thus, summary judgment was premature inasmuch as information necessary to oppose the motion remained within Trussalo’s exclusive knowledge (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Yu v Forero, 184 AD2d 506, 507-508).

Section 3212(f) permits a court to deny summary judgment as premature when outstanding discovery may reveal facts needed to decide the motion.

Williams v. MTA Bus Co. · filed 2014-06-23(f)

Summary judgment on the ground that the NYCTA and MABSTOA did not own the “M7 Express bus” at issue is denied as premature pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f). Depositions of the NYCTA and MABSTOA have not been held, and the court believes that their depositions may shed light on the bus at issue, its route designation and which entity owned it.

CPLR 3212 permits summary judgment only when there are no material or triable issues of fact.

Alvarado v. Alvarado · filed 2014-07-24

Summary judgment may only be granted where there are no material or triable issues of fact. ... To the extent that wife now attempts to raise a question of fact regarding the status of their marriage, she is hereby judicially estopped from doing so. ... Accordingly, husband’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.

Section 3212(f) permits a court to deny summary judgment as premature when discovery may reveal facts needed to oppose the motion.

Sepulveda v. Cammeby's Management Co. · filed 2014-07-30(f)

Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, as premature, its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, since discovery, including depositions of the appellant and the defendant/third-party plaintiff, may result in disclosure of evidence relevant to the causes of action asserted in the third-party complaint (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Hillside Cycles, Inc., 89 AD3d 653, 654 [2011]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina & Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578 [2009]; Betz v N.Y.C. Premier Props., Inc., 38 AD3d 815, 816 [2007]).

Section 3212(b) requires summary judgment when the submitted proof establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no genuine issue of material fact remains.

Kosterich v. Frank Ciotta & Associates · filed 2014-08-08(b)

CPLR 3212 (b) states in pertinent part that 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.” ... Plaintiff has not raised any genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment without a trial.

Morton v. 338 West 46th Street Realty, LLC · filed 2014-08-29

On a motion for summary judgment, the proponent bears the initial burden of setting forth evidentiary facts to prove a prima facie case that would entitle it to judgment in its favor, without the need for a trial (CPLR 3212; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment only when no triable issue of fact exists.

El-Ad 250 West LLC v. Zurich American Insurance · filed 2014-06-27

Summary judgment may be granted only when it is clear that no triable issue of fact exists.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment by demonstrating the absence of material factual issues.

Gammons v. City of New York · filed 2014-12-19(b)

To succeed on their summary judgment motion, defendants must establish “a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also CPLR 3212 [b]). For the reasons we discuss, defendants have failed to meet their burden.

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment by demonstrating the absence of material factual issues.

Chiara v. Town of New Castle · filed 2015-01-14(b)

In reviewing the defendants' motion for summary judgment, this Court must determine whether the defendants met their burden of establishing "a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" ( Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; see CPLR 3212[b]).

A party seeking summary judgment under CPLR 3212 must submit admissible proof showing no triable issue of fact; a request for damages to be determined can be treated as a motion for summary judgment on liability.

Mishaan v. 1035 Fifth Avenue Corp. · filed 2015-01-15

By seeking “damages in an amount to be determined for breaches of fiduciary duty,” the petitioners are, in effect, moving for summary judgment as to liability on that cause of action. ... The proponent of a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 must establish its entitlement to such relief as a ... matter of law ... by submitting proof in admissible form demonstrating the absence of triable issues of fact. ... For the reasons set forth below, this portion of the petitioners’ motion is denied.

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law without a trial.

Ballard v. Gromack · filed 2015-02-17

The proponent of a summary judgment motion bears the burden of proving prima facie entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law and without the need for a trial.

Section 3212(f) permits a court to deny summary judgment as premature when discovery may reveal facts needed to oppose the motion.

Weinstein v. WB/Stellar IP Owner, LLC · filed 2015-02-19(f)

In light of the legal and factual issues raised on reargument and renewal, Stellar’s motion should have been denied as premature, since plaintiff had no opportunity to depose Stellar, codefendant Friends, or nonparty EDC concerning, among other things, the project and maintenance of the extended sidewalk area following its completion (CPLR 3212 [f|; Brooks v Somerset Surgical Assoc., 106 AD3d 624, 624-625 [1st Dept 2013]).

Section 3212(f) did not require denial or delay of summary judgment where the court rejected the claim that further discovery was needed.

Ruggiero v. Miles · filed 2015-02-26(f)

While we are unpersuaded by plaintiff's contention that the motion should have been denied or held in abeyance pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), we do agree that the motion should have been denied upon the merits.

Once a movant establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must raise a genuine issue of material fact.

Basile v. Rose · filed 2015-04-16(b)

Accordingly, plaintiffs met their prima facie burden to establish their entitlement to summary judgment, and the burden shifted to defendant to raise a genuine issue of material fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment only when the moving party shows that no triable issue of fact exists.

Highbridge House Ogden LLC v. Highbridge Entities LLC · filed 2015-05-26(b)

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which will be granted only when the party seeking summary judgment has established that there are no triable issues of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]).

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when documents needed to determine the merits have not yet been produced.

Ansah v. A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc. · filed 2015-06-16(f)

The court properly denied the motion for summary judgment as premature (CPLR 3212 [f]), since the merits of plaintiffs’ claims cannot be determined prior to production of the relevant public work contracts.

Section 3212 permits summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing when no triable issue of fact remains.

Grimes v. Grimes · filed 2015-05-20

Accordingly, in the absence of triable issues of fact, no hearing was required (see generally CPLR 3212).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to show that no facts are in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Country-Wide Insurance v. Gotham Medical, P.C. · filed 2015-11-20(b)

A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that there are no disputed issues of fact and that he, she, or it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (Smalls v AJI Indus., Inc., 10 NY3d 733, 735 [2008]; Pokoik v Pokoik, 115 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2014]; see Gammons v City of New York, 24 NY3d 562, 569 [2014]).

Section 3212 entitles a moving party to summary judgment only if its evidence eliminates all material issues of fact.

Aviles v. Putnam Park Properties LLC · filed 2016-02-17

The moving party is entitled to summary judgment only if it tenders evidence sufficient to eliminate all material issues of fact from the case.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the submitted proof establishes a claim or defense sufficiently to warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Maines Paper & Food Service, Inc. v. The Pike Company, Inc. · filed 2016-03-03(b)

A motion for summary judgment may 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 Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Stubbs v Ellis Hosp., 68 AD3d 1617, 1618 [2009]).

Under CPLR 3212, summary judgment is granted when the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment and the opponent fails to raise a triable issue of fact.

Hammond v. Smith · filed 2016-04-22

Defendant has presented prima facie proof that there was no partnership between the parties. Plaintiff's submissions fail to create a triable issue. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when the opposing party has not had an opportunity for discovery on an issue the motion asks the court to decide.

Cruz v. Skeritt · filed 2016-06-21(f)

The grant of summary judgment on the serious injury issue was premature, since defendants had not had an opportunity to conduct any discovery concerning the extent or causation of the injuries (CPLR 3212 [f]; Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 103 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant must demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment, and the opponent must raise a material triable issue of fact to defeat the motion.

230 Park Avenue Holdco, LLC v. Kurzman Karelsen & Frank, LLP · filed 2016-06-23(b)

Plaintiff met its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing defendants' third affirmative defense alleging that plaintiff breached the stipulation between the parties (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendants' submissions in opposition to plaintiff's motion failed to raise a material triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the moving party makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and no triable issue of fact remains.

Loch Sheldrake Beach and Tennis Inc. v. Akulich · filed 2016-07-07(b)

Turning to that part of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment, a moving party is entitled to summary judgment ... where there are no triable issues of fact and where that party makes a prima facie showing that it is entitled to a favorable determination as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v Rabizadeh, 22 NY3d 470, 475 [2013]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]).

Section 3212(f) allows a party to oppose summary judgment as premature by showing that discovery may yield relevant evidence or that essential facts are exclusively within the opposing party’s knowledge and control.

Joon Mgt. One Corp. v. Town of Ramapo · filed 2016-08-17(f)

The plaintiff's contention that the Town's motion for summary judgment was premature is without merit, as it failed to demonstrate how discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the Town ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Rungoo v Leary , 110 AD3d 781, 783; Cajas-Romero v Ward , 106 AD3d 850, 852).

CPLR 3212 permits summary judgment when no material issue of fact requires a trial and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

State v. Ralph P. · filed 2016-09-28

Under CPLR 3212, the court may direct summary judgment as a matter of law where “there is no material issue of fact to be tried, and . . . judgment may be directed as a matter of law.” (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 651 [2004].) ... There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the respondent has a “condition, disease or disorder” under article 10. For all of those reasons, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the petition is ordered dismissed.

On a foreclosure summary judgment motion, a mortgagee that produces the mortgage, unpaid note, and evidence of default shifts the burden to the mortgagor to demonstrate a defense that raises a question of fact.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Slavin · filed 2016-11-21

On a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action, “where a mortgagee produces the mortgage and unpaid note, together with evidence of the mortgagor’s default, the mortgagee demonstrates its entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the mortgagor to assert and demonstrate, by competent and admissible evidence, any defense that could properly raise a question of fact” (United Cos. Lending Corp. v Hingos, 283 AD2d 764, 765 [3d Dept 2001]).

Section 3212(f) does not justify denying summary judgment for further discovery based only on a hope of finding evidence; the opposing party must show that essential facts are in the movant’s exclusive knowledge and possession.

HOGANWILLIG, PLLC v. KAHN, CARRIE W. · filed 2016-12-23(f)

As an initial matter, we reject plaintiff’s contention that summary judgment was premature because it had not conducted depositions (see generally CPLR 3212 [f]). Plaintiff failed to establish that facts essential to oppose the motion were in defendant’s exclusive knowledge and possession, and its mere hope that conducting depositions would disclose evidence to prove its case is insufficient to support denial of the motion (see Boyle v Caledonia-Mumford Cent. Sch., 140 AD3d 1619, 1621-1622; Kremer v Sinopia LLC, 104 AD3d 479, 481; Denby v Pace Univ., 294 AD2d 156, 156- 157).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment by demonstrating the absence of material factual issues.

New Yorker Hotel Management Co. v. District Council No. 9 New York IUPAT · filed 2017-01-27(b)

A party moving for summary judgment must show prima facie an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v Brown, 27 NY3d 1039, 1043 [2016]; Pokoik v Pokoik, 115 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2014]; CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a summary judgment movant must establish a claim or defense warranting judgment as a matter of law.

Schulhof v. Jacobs · filed 2017-02-27(b)

To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must sufficiently establish the cause of action or defense, warranting the court to direct judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 3212[b]).

CPLR 3212 permits summary judgment when the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material factual issues.

Sun v. Allstate Indemnity Co. · filed 2017-03-01

The court finds that defendant has established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material facts. ... Based upon the foregoing, defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 is granted and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 is denied.

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when factual questions remain and discovery is incomplete.

1626 2nd Ave LLC v. National Specialty Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 2017-03-16(f)

Defendants’ various theories as to why plaintiff may not recover from them are laden with factual questions and particularly inappropriate for resolution prior to the completion of discovery. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion as premature (see Brooks v Somerset Surgical Assoc., 106 AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2013]; CPLR 3212 [f]).

Section 3212 requires a summary judgment movant to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of material factual issues before the burden shifts to the opponent.

MLF3 Jagger LLC v. Kempton · filed 2017-03-27

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Only when the movant has satisfied the court in this respect, will the burden shift to the respondent.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie evidentiary showing and the opponent fails to present evidence sufficient to defeat it.

Medical Arts-Huntington Realty, LLC v. Meltzer Rosenberg Development, LLC · filed 2017-04-12(b)

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to summary judgment on its fraudulent conveyance causes of action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274 insofar as asserted against the appellants, by submitting evidence that the transfers of proceeds from the sale of the property, made by 214 Wall to the appellants, rendered 214 Wall insolvent and were made without fair consideration. In opposition, the appellants failed to establish that they provided fair consideration within the meaning of the Debtor and Creditor Law.

CPLR 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when discovery is at an early stage.

50 Gramercy Park North Owners Corp. v. GPH Partners LLC (Sponsor) · filed 2017-04-25(f)

Further, insofar as plaintiff relied on affidavits and documentary evidence in support of its motion, given the early stage of discovery, Supreme Court did not err in denying summary judgment as premature (see CPLR 3212 [f]).

Section 3212 permits summary judgment when the submitted evidence establishes a claim or defense and the opposition raises no triable issue of fact.

Matter of Zahav Enters., Inc. v. Martens · filed 2017-05-03

Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 622.12 (d), a motion for a summary order may be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense is established sufficiently to grant summary judgment under CPLR 3212 (see Matter of Edgar v Jorling, 225 AD2d 770, 771 [1996]). Here, the DEC submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Zahav was liable for the three causes of action.

CPLR 3212(f) permits a party to oppose summary judgment as premature by showing that essential facts are in the movant’s exclusive knowledge and possession and could be obtained through discovery.

Board of Managers of West Amherst Office Park Condominium v. RMFSG, LLC · filed 2017-09-29(f)

We reject defendant’s alternative contention that summary judgment is premature. Defendant “ ‘failed to demonstrate that facts essential to oppose the motion[s] were in plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge and possession and could be obtained by ... discovery’ ” (M&T Bank v HR Staffing Solutions, Inc. [appeal No. 2], 106 AD3d 1498, 1499 [2013]; see CPLR 3212 [f]).

Section 3212(b) requires the party seeking summary judgment to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must raise a triable issue of fact.

Lodge II Hotel LLC v. Joso Realty LLC · filed 2017-11-17(b)

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiffs met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to the declaration sought as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v Rabizadeh, 22 NY3d 470, 475-476 [2013]), and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324).

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when the opposing party shows how further discovery might reveal evidence within the movant’s exclusive knowledge that would warrant denial.

Morizio v. Roeder · filed 2018-01-08(f)

Under CPLR 3212 (f), summary judgment may be denied as premature where the opposing party has not yet had adequate opportunity to conduct discovery. ... Morizio has failed to establish how further discovery would bear on his opposition to defendants' motion.

Subdivision (f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when discovery is incomplete and information needed to oppose the motion remains within the movant's exclusive knowledge.

Sparks v. Focus 1 LLC · filed 2018-06-08(f)

We agree with plaintiff that the motion is premature because discovery has not been completed and thus "information necessary to oppose the motion[, particularly with respect to whether Focus created or contributed to the dangerous condition,] remained within [Focus's] exclusive knowledge" ( Buffamante Whipple Buttafaro, Certified Public Accountants, P.C. v Dawson , 118 AD3d 1283, 1284 [4th Dept 2014]; see CPLR 3212 [f]; see generally Singh v Avis Rent A Car Sys. , Inc. , 119 AD3d 768, 770 [2d Dept 2014]).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; a triable issue of fact defeats the motion.

Poon v. Nisanov · filed 2018-06-13(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" ( id .; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp ., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

Section 3212 places the initial burden on the party seeking summary judgment; the opposing party must then raise an issue of fact.

Shuknecht v. Shuknecht · filed 2018-06-15

Defendant met her initial burden by submitting plaintiffs' admissions on the prior appeal that defendant owned the property at issue and that plaintiffs were obligated and failed to pay the property taxes and insurance, and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition ( see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A defendant seeking summary judgment must establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; if it does, the plaintiff must present admissible evidence of a material factual issue requiring trial.

Panjwani v. MTA Bus Co. · filed 2018-06-29(b)

Where a defendant is the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, it must establish that the "cause of action . . . has no merit" and the motion will "be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the . . . defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment" in the defendant's favor (CPLR 3212 [b]). ... Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must submit evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial of the action. ... In our view, the Civil Court properly denied defendants' motion, as plaintiff raised questions of fact as to whether the bus driver was negligent in either causing the bus to stop short or in failing to prevent the bus from stopping short as a result of the children playing with the rear door.

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to establish that no material facts are in dispute and that the party is entitled to relief as a matter of law.

Matter of Kenneth J. v. Lesley B. · filed 2018-10-04(b)

Even if the court could have considered them, we would find that they did not support the award of summary judgment to the mother, since they failed to establish that there were no material facts in dispute and that the mother was entitled to the relief sought as a matter of law (CPLR 3212[b]).

Section 3212(f) permits a party to resist summary judgment by showing that further discovery may produce relevant evidence or that essential facts are within the opposing party's knowledge and control.

Zielinski v. New Jersey Tr. Corp. · filed 2019-03-13(f)

There is no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the transit defendants' motion for summary judgment was premature. The plaintiff failed to show that additional discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that facts essential to oppose the motion were exclusively within the transit defendants' knowledge and control ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Merritt Constr., Inc. v Town of Kent , 164 AD3d 490, 492).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when admissible evidence shows no triable issue of material fact and the claim or defense lacks merit.

Angiolillo v. Christie's, Inc. · filed 2019-04-26(b)

Summary judgment should be granted when the movant presents evidentiary proof in admissible form that there are no triable issues of material fact and that there is either no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit (CPLR § 3212[b]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), counsel's affirmation standing alone is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to summary judgment.

Liu v. Lowe · filed 2019-06-12(b)

Counsel's affirmation, standing alone, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see CPLR 3212[b]; Roche v Hearst Corp. , 53 NY2d 767, 769; Lazarre v Gragston , 164 AD3d 574, 575; Bentick v Gatachalian , 147 AD3d 890, 892).

Section 3212 does not permit a court to grant summary judgment on its own initiative when no motion for that relief is before it.

Czajka v. Pendell · filed 2019-07-03

"A court cannot, sua sponte, grant summary judgment in the absence of any CPLR 3212 motion for such relief" ( Berle v Buckley , 57 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2008] [citations omitted]; see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Garrasi , 80 AD3d 1061, 1063 [2011]; Barrett v Watkins , 52 AD3d 1000, 1002 [2008]). Supreme Court did not have a motion for summary judgment before it, nor did it treat Pendell's opposition papers as a motion to dismiss that could have been [*2]converted into one ( see CPLR 3211 [c]).

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

Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v. Hector A. Marichal, P.C. · filed 2019-07-31(b)

We further conclude that plaintiff met its initial burden on its cross motion of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see CPLR 3212 [b]) and that defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( see Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC v Bank of the W. , 28 NY3d 439, 448 [2016]).

CPLR 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when essential facts are exclusively in the opposing party's possession and discovery is incomplete.

Vizcaino v. Park Lane Mosholu, LLC · filed 2020-02-18(f)

The remainder of the motion for summary judgment was premature because defendants had not been deposed and they are exclusively in possession of essential facts concerning notice and creation of the hole ( see Figueroa v City of New York , 126 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2015]; Brooks v Somerset Surgical Assoc. , 106 AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2013]; CPLR 3212[f]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a movant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment shifts the burden to the opposing party to show a material issue of fact.

Redwing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Sexton · filed 2020-03-05(b)

Given the plain language of the contract and defendants' assertions, they established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, shifting the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Ridley Elec. Co., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. , 152 AD3d at 1131-1132).

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the proof establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the movant must make a prima facie showing, after which the opponent must show a triable factual issue.

Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc. v. Biomed Pharms., Inc. · filed 2020-03-18(b)

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 [*3]directing judgment in favor of any party" (CPLR 3212[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" ( Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 NY2d 851, 853). Once the movant makes a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the existence of factual issues requiring a trial ( see Kaluga v Korytowsky , 269 AD2d 566, 566).

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

Reed Smith LLP v. Leed HR, LLC · filed 2020-05-11

On a motion for summary judgment, the movant "must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" ( Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986], citing Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidence in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact ( Zuckerman v New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 3212(b) requires summary judgment when the submitted proof sufficiently establishes a party's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Wonderly v. City of Poughkeepsie · filed 2020-07-01(b)

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]).

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when discovery may yield evidence relevant to opposing the motion.

Johnson v. New York City Hous. Auth. · filed 2020-07-15(f)

However, in opposition to Ace's prima facie showing, NYCHA demonstrated that discovery might lead to relevant evidence that would justify opposition to the motion ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Pinella v Crescent St. Corp. , 176 AD3d 985, 987; Rutherford v Brooklyn Navy Yard Dev. Corp. , 174 AD3d 932, 933; Haxhijaj v Ferrer , 166 AD3d 592, 593). Accordingly, NYCHA demonstrated that summary judgment was premature.

CPLR 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment as premature when further discovery may produce evidence relevant to opposing the motion.

211-12 N. Blvd. Corp. v. LIC Contr., Inc. · filed 2020-07-22(f)

However, we agree with the defendants that the Supreme Court should have denied, as premature, that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of the liability on the cause of action alleging nuisance insofar as asserted against the defendants. "A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant" ( Cajas-Romero v Ward , 106 AD3d 850, 852; see CPLR 3212[f]; Castro v Rodriguez , 176 AD3d 1031).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to submit competent, admissible evidence showing no genuine issue of fact; the motion must be denied if the opposing evidence raises a triable issue.

Myers v. Home Energy Performance by Halco · filed 2020-11-05(b)

"In order to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendants are required to tender sufficient, competent, admissible evidence demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of fact" ( Cole v Chun , 185 AD3d 1183, 1185 [2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see CPLR 3212 [b]; Andre v Pomeroy , 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]). ... Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, we find that plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether defendants caused the tanks to be left in a dangerous condition and whether the condition of the moved soil proximately caused Myers' injuries ( see Altman v Shaw , 184 AD3d 995, 999-1000 [2020]; Reed v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. , 183 AD3d at 1212; Kraft v Loso , 154 AD3d 1265, 1266-1267 [2017]).

Under CPLR 3212(f), a party claiming a summary judgment motion is premature must provide a basis to believe further discovery might yield relevant evidence.

Ragusin v. Gabrielli · filed 2020-12-09(f)

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, she did not demonstrate that the defendants' motion was premature, as she failed to provide the necessary basis to support the proposition that further discovery might lead to relevant evidence ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Brewster v Five Towns Health Care Realty Corp. , 59 AD3d 483, 484).

Under CPLR 3212(b), conclusory allegations opposing summary judgment do not raise a material issue of fact.

Southard v. Harris · filed 2021-02-25(b)

Accordingly, the conclusory allegations in Harris' opposition affirmation are insufficient to raise a material issue of fact ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Maidman Family Parking, L.P. v Wallace Indus., Inc. , 155 AD3d 1162, 1165 [2017]), and, therefore, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action.

Section 3212(b) permits summary judgment when the submitted proof establishes a claim or defense sufficiently for judgment as a matter of law.

Wedgewood Care Ctr., Inc. v. Kravitz · filed 2021-08-18(b)

On the other hand, 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 at 324).

Summary judgment is not premature merely because the defendant has not been deposed when the claim that the deposition may reveal relevant evidence is speculative.

Price v. Sarasene · filed 2021-10-28

Also unavailing is plaintiffs' argument that the grant of summary judgment was premature because defendant had not yet been deposed. Plaintiffs' contention that defendant might admit to having knowledge of some relevant prior incident involving Sampson is purely speculative, particularly given her sworn affidavit to the contrary ( see Ivory Dev., LLC v Roe , 135 AD3d 1216, 1224 [2016]; Bevens v Tarrant Mfg. Co., Inc. , 48 AD3d 939, 942 [2008]).

Section 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment when a party has had no reasonable opportunity for discovery that may reveal evidence relevant to its claims.

Menche v. CDx Diagnostics, Inc. · filed 2021-11-03(f)

Indeed, a motion for summary judgment is premature when a party had no reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery, and discovery may result in disclosure of evidence relevant to the causes of action asserted in the complaint ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Hillside Cycles, Inc. , 89 AD3d 653).

Section 3212(b) permits a foreclosure plaintiff to prove payment default through an admission, an affidavit based on personal knowledge, or other admissible evidence.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Moulton · filed 2020-01-08(b)

A plaintiff may establish a payment default by an admission made in response to a notice to admit ( see CPLR 3212[b]; 3123), by an affidavit from " a person having [personal] knowledge of the facts' (CPLR 3212[b]), or by other evidence in admissible form'" ( Bank of NY Mellon v Gordon , 171 AD3d at 208, quoting Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co. , 25 NY3d 498, 507).

Under CPLR 3212(b), a foreclosure plaintiff seeking summary judgment must provide admissible evidence of payment default; an affidavit based on business records that are not attached or incorporated does not suffice.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Bazigos · filed 2019-09-25(b)

Here, Bluford, whose knowledge was based on business records, did not actually attach or otherwise incorporate into her affidavit any business records showing that Bazigos had defaulted on the note. Thus, her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value on the issue of Bazigos's default ( see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon , 171 AD3d at 208-209). Since the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that Bazigos had defaulted on the subject note, 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 Bazigos and for an order of reference.

A summary judgment movant must establish prima facie entitlement to judgment with admissible evidence; the court cannot rely on untested hearsay or information from earlier court conferences.

Matter of McNichol v. Reid · filed 2019-10-02(b)

Here, the mother failed to establish, prima facie, her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the father's petition, and to termination of her child support obligation, on the ground of parental alienation. The Family Court, in making its determination that the father alienated the child from the mother, improperly relied on inadmissible information that had been provided at court conferences in earlier proceedings before a different judge. The court also improperly relied on hearsay statements and conclusions by an expert, whose credibility was not tested by either party, from an earlier forensic evaluation, and on statements and conclusions by two therapists, whose opinions and credibility were not tested by either party, made at a conference before a different judge ( see generally S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d 558, 564; Gentile v Gentile , 149 AD3d 916, 918; see also CPLR 3212[b]; Matter of La Bier v La Bier , 291 AD2d 730).

Under CPLR 3212(b), an affidavit opposing summary judgment has no evidentiary value on facts outside the affiant’s personal knowledge.

Rosenthal v. Village of Quogue · filed 1994-06-27(b)

Moreover, the affidavit by the infant’s father, wherein the father alleges that the accident was caused by a defect created by the Village, is without evidentiary value, inasmuch as the father was not present at the time and had no personal knowledge of the location of the accident (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

CPLR 3212(f) permits denial of summary judgment when the opposing party’s affidavit warrants it.

McNeil v. Acura of Valley Stream · filed 1994-02-22(f)

We find that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs was sufficient to warrant denial of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f).

CPLR 3212(b) allows an affidavit from a person with knowledge of the facts to defeat summary judgment by raising triable issues of fact.

Harbor Seafood, Inc. v. Quality Fish Co. · filed 1993-06-21(b)

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, we find that the Supreme Court properly denied their cross motion for summary judgment with respect to the causes of actions against the defendant Quality Fish Company, Inc. (hereinafter Quality Fish), inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by the defendant Mono Marinello, the president of Quality Fish, in opposition to the plaintiffs’ cross motion constituted sufficient proof by a person having knowledge of the facts to raise several triable issues of fact with respect to the existence of a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and Quality Fish (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; cf., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

An affidavit from a person with knowledge of the material facts can provide admissible proof supporting a summary judgment motion under CPLR 3212(b).

Villagio v. Mandel Foods, Inc. · filed 1993-03-01(b)

... as the record discloses an affidavit by a person having knowledge of the material facts (CPLR 3212 [b]).

An attorney’s affidavit opposing summary judgment may submit written agreements as evidentiary proof in admissible form.

H.P.S. Capitol, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp. · filed 1992-09-29

Initially, the affidavit of defendant’s counsel in opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment may serve as the vehicle for submission of acceptable evidentiary proof in admissible form, which, in this instance, is the parties’ own written agreements (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563).

Section 3212(b) allows a court to consider affidavits already before it from an earlier summary judgment motion without requiring duplicate copies.

Elias v. Handler · filed 1992-03-02(b)

Where, as here, the plaintiff has submitted affidavits previously filed by the defendants in support of a prior motion for summary judgment, and those affidavits are therefore before the court, submission of additional copies of the affidavits is not required. Triable issues of fact exist with respect to the circumstances surrounding the conversion of the plaintiff’s interest in the venture from a general partnership to a limited partnership, the sale of the plaintiff’s limited partnership interest, and the conduct of the parties with respect to the satisfaction of all outstanding debts.

Section 3212(b) permits a summary judgment affidavit from a person with knowledge of the facts, even if that person lacks standing in the action.

Klein v. Trout Lake Preserve Homeowners' Ass'n · filed 1992-01-30(b)

We disagree, however, with Supreme Court’s conclusion that David Klein’s affidavit could not be considered in determining the parties’ respective motions. David Klein has lived on lot 11 since 1986 and clearly is "a person having knowledge of the facts” (CPLR 3212 [b]) in this case.

Section 3212 allows a court to consider an attorney’s affirmation based on documentary evidence in opposition to summary judgment, even when the attorney lacks personal knowledge of the facts.

Russo v. 491 West Street Corp. · filed 1991-10-24

Although the affirmation of an attorney who lacks personal knowledge of the facts usually does not have the probative value to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the affirmation of an attorney based upon documentary evidence, as in the case at bar, will be considered by the court (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563).

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment movant to support a claim or defense with admissible proof, after which the opposing party must show facts requiring a trial.

Marriott v. Shaw · filed 1991-07-30(b)

In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish a cause of action or defense sufficiently, by proof in admissible form, to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment. Once such proof has been offered, in order to defeat the summary judgment motion the opposing party must "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.”

Section 3212(b) requires a summary judgment motion to be supported by an affidavit from a person with knowledge of the facts.

Castro v. New York Life Insurance · filed 1991-07-29(b)

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is also denied. Defendant has failed to support the motion with an affidavit by a person having knowledge of the facts (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Under CPLR 3212, a hearsay affidavit from a discontinued action cannot by itself raise a triable issue about whether an indorsement was forged.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. · filed 1991-06-27

Rodman’s affidavit filed in the prior action was inadmissible hearsay (Friedman v Sills, 112 AD2d 343), and in any event was by itself insufficient to raise a triable issue as to the genuineness of the indorsement (State Bank v McAuliffe, 97 AD2d 607, appeal dismissed 61 NY2d 758).

Under Section 3212(b), a verified pleading based on firsthand knowledge may serve as an affidavit on a summary judgment motion.

Studin v. Allstate Insurance · filed 1991-06-04(b)

Because his allegations are based on his firsthand knowledge, this pleading may be treated as an affidavit for purposes of CPLR 3212 (b) (see, CPLR 105 [t]).

Under CPLR 3212(b), an attorney’s affirmation alone has no probative value in opposing summary judgment.

Schwartz v. Light · filed 1991-05-06(b)

Notably, however, the plaintiffs opposed both motions solely by their attorney’s affirmation, which lacks probative value on a motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

A party opposing summary judgment must present sufficient admissible proof of a genuine factual issue requiring trial.

Rebollal v. Payne · filed 1987-01-30

A party opposing an application for summary judgment is required to assemble and lay bare sufficient proof in admissible form to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide issue of act requiring a trial (CPLR 3212; Smith v Johnson Prods. Co., 95 AD2d 675 [1st Dept 1983]).

Section 3212(b) requires a party seeking summary judgment to submit admissible evidence; attorney statements without knowledge of the facts have no probative value.

Simpson v. Term Industries, Inc. · filed 1987-01-27(b)

Other than the submission of the various documents bearing upon the chains of title, neither moving party submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form, as required on such a motion (CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Section 3212 requires sufficient evidence in admissible form to warrant summary judgment.

Board of Education of the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District v. Wieder · filed 1987-02-10

In addition, in any event, the defendants have failed, upon this motion, to adduce sufficient evidence in admissible form to warrant summary judgment upon such issue.