Blauman-Spindler v. Blauman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1106Contrary to the father’s contention, there is.no requirement that a movant identify a specific statute or rule in the notice of motion, only that the notice “specify . . . the relief demanded and the grounds therefor” (CPLR 2214 [a]). Even though the mother’s notice of motion and supporting affirmation did not formally and specifically request relief pursuant to CPLR 3126, where, as here, there is no misunderstanding or prejudice, “a court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides” (Frankel v Stavsky, 40 AD3d 918, 918-919 [2007]; see HCE…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pace v. PerkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Dennis v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Frankel v. StavskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- HCE Associates v. 3000 Watermill Lane Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Maillard v. MaillardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Shields v. CarboneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Seale v. SealeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Shaw v. RPA Associates, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Romeo v. BarrellaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Crystal Clear Development, LLC v. Devon Architects of New York, P.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.