From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carcone v. D'Angelo Insurance Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2003
302 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CA 02-01181

February 7, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Kirk, J.), entered March 14, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant American States Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

BRINDISI, MURAD BRINDISI-PEARLMAN, LLP, UTICA (STEPHANIE A. PALMER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN DICKER LLP, NEW YORK (RICHARD E. LERNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint against defendant American States Insurance Company is reinstated.

Memorandum:

Although American States Insurance Company (defendant) moved to dismiss the complaint against it under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), Supreme Court issued a written decision specifying that it was granting the motion "for summary judgment" and discussing the absence of issues of fact. The order dismissed the complaint on the merits with prejudice. Where there is a conflict between an order and a decision, the decision controls (see Matter of Edward V., 204 A.D.2d 1060). We agree with plaintiffs that the court improperly converted the motion to dismiss to a CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment. Although a court may convert such a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), the court must give the parties notice of its intent to do so (see id.; see e.g. Mihlovan v. Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506, 508; Pitts v. City of Buffalo, 298 A.D.2d 1003; Village of Webster v. Monroe County Water Auth., 269 A.D.2d 781, 782). In the absence of such notice, the court may convert a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment only if the parties "expressly [sought] summary judgment or [submitted] facts and arguments clearly indicating that they were 'deliberately charting a summary judgment course'" (Mihlovan, 72 N.Y.2d at 508, quoting Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d 310, 320; see Village of Webster, 269 A.D.2d at 782). Here, there is no indication that the court provided the requisite notice or that the parties expressly sought summary judgment or deliberately charted a summary judgment course. We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion and reinstate the complaint against defendant.


Summaries of

Carcone v. D'Angelo Insurance Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2003
302 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Carcone v. D'Angelo Insurance Agency

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE A. CARCONE AND CONCETTA CARCONE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. D'ANGELO…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 173

Citing Cases

Ubaydah v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

The court properly granted the motions and cross motions of the Tim Horton's defendants. Although only one…

Sackets Harbor v. Sackets Harbor Leasing Co.

Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from using the docks…