March 19, 2014
Dahyabhai M. Patel, et al., appellants,
Primary Construction, LLC, et al., respondents. Index No. 7954/11
Law Offices of Paul D. Stone, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y., for appellants.
Traub, Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Jamie R. Kuebler of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for nuisance and trespass, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated September 14, 2012, as converted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint into one for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon granted the motion.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion is denied.
The Supreme Court erred when it converted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint into one for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon granted the motion. "CPLR 3211(c) requires that if a court intends to treat a CPLR 3211 motion as one for summary judgment under CPLR 3212, it must give the parties notice of its intention to do so" (Hendrickson v Philbor Motors, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 251, 258; see Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506, 508; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kuldip, 108 A.D.3d 686, 687). While the defendants contend that such notice was not required because the parties unequivocally charted a summary judgment course on the motion (see generally One Monroe, LLC v City of New York, 89 A.D.3d 812, 813; Harris v Hallberg, 36 A.D.3d 857, 858), that exception to the notice requirement is not applicable here because the parties' evidentiary submissions were not so extensive as to indicate that they were laying bare their proof (see generally Wesolowski v St. Francis Hosp., 108 A.D.3d 525, 526; Sunset Café, Inc. v Mett's Surf & Sports Corp., 103 A.D.3d 707, 708; Warren v Mikle, 40 A.D.3d 974, 975), and the plaintiffs may have made different offers of proof to defeat a summary judgment motion if they had received such notice (see Hoeffner v John F. Frank, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 428, 430).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.