Allstate Insurance Company v. Raguzin
| Decision Date | 15 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2004-00241. |
| Citation | 784 N.Y.S.2d 644,12 A.D.3d 468,2004 NY Slip Op 08175 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. KELLY RAGUZIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted in support of a motion to dismiss the complaint, the motion should be granted only where such evidence demonstrates that a material fact alleged by the plaintiff to be true is "not a fact at all," and that "no significant dispute exists regarding it" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; see Illions v Allstate Ins. Co., 2 AD3d 686 [2003]; Yew Prospect v Szulman, 305 AD2d 588, 589 [2003]; Museum Trading Co. v Bantry, 281 AD2d 524, 525 [2001]). Here, however, the defendant's evidentiary submissions failed to show that a material fact alleged in the plaintiff's complaint was "not a fact at all" and that "no significant dispute exists regarding it" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, supra at 275). Moreover, to the extent that the defendant's motion was predicated upon documentary evidence, the evidence submitted did not definitively contradict the material allegations of the complaint and conclusively dispose of the plaintiff's claim (see Yew Prospect v Szulman, supra; Museum Trading Co. v Bantry, supra). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint was properly denied.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the sur-reply letter the plaintiff's attorney submitted in response to a new issue raised in the defendant's reply papers (see Barbuto v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 305 AD2d 623 [2003]; 269 Fulton Corp. v H.A.B. Realty Assoc., 179 AD2d 752, 753 [1992]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haniff v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2008 NY Slip Op 30139(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1/7/2008), 0013499/2004.
... ... See, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, supra; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633 (1976); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raguzin, 12 A.D.3d 468 (2nd Dept. 2004) ... Although "any deficiencies in the complaint may be amplified by supplemental ... ...
-
Inc. v. Mastic Beach Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...2012]; Whale Telecom Ltd. v. Qualcomm Inc., 41 AD3d 348, 839 N.Y.S.2d 726 [1st Dept 2007]; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raguzin, 12 AD3d 468, 784 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2d Dept 2004]; Barbuto v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 305 A.D.2d 623, 760 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2d Dept 2003] ). CPLR 6401, entitled “Appointment and pow......
-
Aubry v. U-Haul Co. of Ariz.
...and there can be no significant dispute about it ( see, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 [1977];Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raguzin, 12 A.D.3d 468, 784 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2nd Dept.2004] ). For a defendant to prevail on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 321......
-
Rolling Acres Developers, LLC v. Montinat
...by Sanon for the first time in her reply papers (see Gastaldi v. Chen, 56 A.D.3d 420, 866 N.Y.S.2d 750 ; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raguzin, 12 A.D.3d 468, 469, 784 N.Y.S.2d 644 ). A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (see Indymac Fed. Bank FS......
-
CPLR 3211(a) (7): demurrer or merits-testing device?
...to be true on a CPLR 3211 motion may properly be negated by affidavits and documentary evidence."); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raguzin, 784 N.Y.S.2d 644, 645 (App. Div. 2d Dep't (58) See, e.g., Leon v. Martinez, 638 N.E.2d 511, 513 (N.Y. 1994); Arrington v. N.Y. Times Co., 434 N.E.2d 1319, 1323 (......