Adamkiewicz v. Lansing

• Citation: 732 N.Y.S.2d 135,288 A.D.2d 531
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Decision Date: 01 November 2001
• Parties: KEVIN M. ADAMKIEWICZ, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>YATES S. LANSING et al., Defendants, and SUNSMILE'S GROUP, INC., Respondent.

288 A.D.2d 531

732 N.Y.S.2d 135

KEVIN M. ADAMKIEWICZ, Appellant,

v.YATES S. LANSING et al., Defendants, and SUNSMILE'S GROUP, INC., Respondent.

Decided November 1, 2001.

Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur.

Cardona, P. J.

On May 1, 2000, plaintiff sustained injuries while working for a subcontractor who was erecting a single-family home on property located in the Town of Malta, Saratoga County. Following the accident, plaintiff initiated a personal injury action containing claims of negligence and Labor Law violations against, among others, defendant Sunsmile's Group, Inc. (hereinafter defendant). In the pleadings, it was alleged that defendant was an owner of the premises where the accident occurred. Prior to joinder of issue, defendant moved to dismiss the action presenting proof that, at the time of the accident, it was not the owner of the property. Specifically, an October 1999 building permit application by defendant Sheryl Ann Lansing, the current owner of the premises, indicated that defendant was the owner of the unimproved lot at that time. However, the motion papers included a copy of a deed dated November 3, 1999 in which defendant conveyed the lot to Lansing. Said deed was filed in the Saratoga County Clerk's office on that same day. Supreme Court granted defendant's motion and plaintiff appeals.

The complaint against defendant was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211. "When reviewing such a motion, a court must liberally construe the pleadings in plaintiff's favor, accept the facts alleged as true, and determine whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable theory" (Ozdemir v Caithness Corp., 285 AD2d 961, 963 [citations omitted]; see, Kovach v Hinchey, 276 AD2d 942, 943). Notably, in this case defendant sought, inter alia, dismissal of the complaint based upon a defense founded upon documentary evidence (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). "To succeed on a motion under CPLR 3211(a) (1), a defendant must show that the documentary evidence upon which the motion is predicated resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and definitively disposes of the plaintiff's claim" (Unadilla Silo Co. v Ernst & Young, 234 AD2d 754 [citations omitted]; see, Ozdemir v Caithness Corp., supra).

Here, defendant argues that the documentary evidence clearly and unambiguously establishes that it transferred ownership of the property to Lansing several months before plaintiff's accident and, therefore, cannot be held liable for plaintiff's injuries. In response, plaintiff attempts to attack the validity of the deed by claiming that the signature of the transferor on the deed was improperly acknowledged. Furthermore, plaintiff claims that the motion to dismiss should have been denied because the price that Lansing paid for the property was purportedly below market value, thus,...