Taylor v Curry

Annotate this Case
Taylor v Curry 2013 NY Slip Op 04593 Decided on June 19, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 19, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
2012-01897
(Index No. 11444/10)

[*1]Maurice Taylor, appellant,

v

Eddy Curry, Jr., respondent.




Reisman, Rubeo & McClure, LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (David S.
Toy of counsel), for appellant.
Gordon & Rees LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joshua S. Hurwit and
Benjamin A. Levine of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), entered January 10, 2012, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination on the merits of the defendant's motion.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) for lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 3211[a][8]). However, in the order appealed from, the Supreme Court directed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff was prejudiced when the Supreme Court directed the dismissal of the complaint on a ground that was not litigated or raised by the parties (see Greene v Davidson, 210 AD2d 108, 109; Matter of Dental Socy. of State of N.Y. v Carey, 92 AD2d 263, 264, affd 61 NY2d 330; see also Matter of Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v Town of Poughkeepsie, 87 AD3d 1148, 1152; cf. Tirado v Miller, 75 AD3d 153, 154; Schrank v Lederman, 52 AD3d 494, 495). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination on the merits of the defendant's motion.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.