Multiquest, P.L.L.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Multiquest, P.L.L.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. 2007 NY Slip Op 51735(U) [16 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on September 12, 2007 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 12, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-312 Q C.

Multiquest, P.L.L.C. a/a/o Leandro Moreta, Respondent,

against

Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph Esposito, J.), entered December 6, 2005. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.


Order modified by providing that the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought the instant action to recover $1,236.99 in assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant moved for summary judgment and the court denied the motion for failure to support it with a copy of the pleadings, a ground not raised by plaintiff.

CPLR 3212 (b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings. Without such pleadings, unless the record is sufficiently complete (Greene v Wood, 6 AD3d 976 [2004]), the motion is procedurally defective (Wider v Heller, 24 AD3d 433 [2005]), and the court may deny it even in the absence of a party raising the objection (see General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Albany Water Bd., 187 AD2d 894, 895 n [1992]). Accordingly, we conclude that, under the circumstances presented, the matter should have been denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers (see Wider v Heller, 24 AD3d 433, supra). In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties' contentions with regard to the merits of the motion (see id.).

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: September 12, 2007

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.