Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Chantal THOMPSON, et al., appellants, v. FOREIGN CARS CENTER, INC., etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and deceptive business practices, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 14, 2006, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants Foreign Cars Center, Inc., d/b/a Kings Volkswagen, and Mickey Gilbert, individually and as an officer of Foreign Cars Center, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the motion of the defendants Foreign Cars Center, Inc., d/b/a Kings Volkswagen, and Mickey Gilbert, individually and as an officer of Foreign Cars Center, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action insofar as asserted against them are denied.
As noted by the plaintiffs in their submissions to the Supreme Court, the defendants Foreign Cars Center, Inc., d/b/a Kings Volkswagen, and Mickey Gilbert, individually and as an officer of Foreign Cars Center, Inc. (hereinafter the defendants), failed to include a complete set of the pleadings in support of their motion for summary judgment, as required by CPLR 3212(b). Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, and the denial of those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action insofar as asserted against them was required (see Matsyuk v. Konkalipos, 35 A.D.3d 675, 824 N.Y.S.2d 918; Wider v. Heller, 24 A.D.3d 433, 434, 805 N.Y.S.2d 130; Sted Tenants Owners Corp. v. Chumpitaz, 5 A.D.3d 663, 774 N.Y.S.2d 718; Lawlor v. County of Nassau, 166 A.D.2d 692, 561 N.Y.S.2d 644).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs' remaining contentions.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 22, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)