From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matsyuk v. Tsipenyuk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2006
35 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2006-00729.

December 19, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Tatyana Tsipenyuk appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated September 9, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

James G. Bilello, Westbury, N.Y. (Patricia McDonagh and Dennis Bartling of counsel), for appellant.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

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; Sted Tenants Owners Corp. v Chumpitaz, 5 AD3d 663; Hamilton v City of New York, 262 AD2d 283; Deer Park Assoc. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443; Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692).


Summaries of

Matsyuk v. Tsipenyuk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2006
35 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Matsyuk v. Tsipenyuk

Case Details

Full title:GALINA MATSYUK, Respondent, v. KONSTANTIN KONKALIPOS et al., Respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 19, 2006

Citations

35 A.D.3d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9570
824 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

Ramsey v. CEC Entm't., Inc.

The requirement that a motion for summary judgment be supported by the pleadings is mandatory. In fact, the…

Ramsey v. Cec Entm't, Inc.

The requirement that a motion for summary judgment be supported by the pleadings is mandatory. In fact, the…