From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henning v. 17 Murray Rest Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 30, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

03-30-2016

James HENNING, appellant, v. 17 MURRAY REST CORP., etc., defendant, Arielle Maggipinto, respondent.

The Cochran Firm, New York, N.Y. (Rudyard F. Whyte and Paul A. Marber of counsel), for appellant. Ryan Perrone & Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and William T. Ryan of counsel), for respondent. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Meredith Drucker Nolen of counsel), for defendant 17 Murray Rest Corp.


The Cochran Firm, New York, N.Y. (Rudyard F. Whyte and Paul A. Marber of counsel), for appellant.

Ryan Perrone & Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and William T. Ryan of counsel), for respondent.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Meredith Drucker Nolen of counsel), for defendant 17 Murray Rest Corp.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 10, 2014, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Arielle Maggipinto, and, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Arielle Maggipinto is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof sua sponte dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Arielle Maggipinto; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court improperly dismissed the complaint, sua sponte, insofar as asserted against the defendant Arielle Maggipinto, on a ground unrelated to the plaintiff's pending motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and not addressed by the parties. "A court's power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal" (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Emmanuel, 83 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 921 N.Y.S.2d 320 ; see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Wong, 132 A.D.3d 825, 18 N.Y.S.3d 669 ; Onewest Bank, FSB v. Prince, 130 A.D.3d 700, 701, 14 N.Y.S.3d 66 ; Rienzi v. Rienzi, 23 A.D.3d 450, 808 N.Y.S.2d 116 ). The exercise of such power in this case was improper because no extraordinary circumstances were present to warrant dismissal (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Polanco, 126 A.D.3d 883, 7 N.Y.S.3d 156 ; Oak Hollow Nursing Ctr. v. Stumbo, 117 A.D.3d 698, 985 N.Y.S.2d 269 ; Dossous v. Corporate Owners Bayridge Nissan, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 937, 956 N.Y.S.2d 174 ; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bah, 95 A.D.3d 1150, 945 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; Atkins–Payne v. Branch, 95 A.D.3d 912, 944 N.Y.S.2d 269 ).

The plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability against Maggipinto (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ; Hughes v. Farrey, 30 A.D.3d 244, 247–248, 817 N.Y.S.2d 25 ; McWain v. Pronto, 30 A.D.3d 675, 676, 815 N.Y.S.2d 365 ). Since the plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden, the sufficiency of Maggipinto's opposition papers need not be considered (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).

The argument raised by the defendant 17 Murray Rest Corp. is not properly before this Court (see CPLR 5511 ) and, under the circumstances, we decline to search the record and award that defendant summary judgment dismissing Maggipinto's cross claim against it for indemnification (cf. CPLR 3212[b] ).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is improperly raised on the first time on appeal and, in any event, need not be reached in light of our determination.


Summaries of

Henning v. 17 Murray Rest Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 30, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Henning v. 17 Murray Rest Corp.

Case Details

Full title:James HENNING, appellant, v. 17 MURRAY REST CORP., etc., defendant…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 30, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 1216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
137 A.D.3d 1216
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2327

Citing Cases

Wallace v. BSD-M Realty, LLC

in the complaint relating to the validity of the disputed instruments, trespass, fraud, and slander of title…

Weindling v. Berkowitz

The father appeals from the order of dismissal and the subsequent order denying his motion, inter alia, to…