Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Galasso, 2019 NY Slip Op 07770 [176 AD3d 1184]
October 30, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP, Plaintiff,
v
Anthony P. Galasso et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP, et al., Plaintiffs, v Signature Bank et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Signature Bank, Plaintiff, v Galasso, Langione & Botter, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.) Wendy Baron et al., Respondents, v Anthony Galasso et al., Defendants, and James Langione, Appellant. (Action No. 4.)
Mark E. Goidell, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Capetola, Williston Park, NY (Michael C. Barrows of counsel), for respondents.
In related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, James Langione, a defendant in Action No. 4, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Vito M. DeStefano, J.), entered April 10, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to so much of a determination in an order dated September 19, 2016, as, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs in Action No. 4 on the second, fourth, and tenth causes of action insofar as asserted against James Langione.
Ordered that the order entered April 10, 2017, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and, upon reargument, so much of the determination in the order dated September 19, 2016, as, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs in Action No. 4 on the second, fourth, and tenth causes of action insofar as asserted against James Langione is vacated.
The underlying facts for these related actions may be found in our decision and order in a related appeal ( see Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Galasso , 176 AD3d 1176 [2019] [decided herewith]).
In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, adhered to so much of a determination in an order dated September 19, 2016, as, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs in Action No. 4 on the second, fourth, and tenth causes of action insofar as asserted against James Langione.
On a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court ( see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co. , 89 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1996]; Baron v Brown , 101 AD3d 915, 916-917 [2012]; Quizhpe v Luvin Constr. , 70 AD3d 912, 914 [2010]). Here, the scope of the arguments made by the plaintiffs in Action No. 4 in support of their motion for summary judgment was limited, and the Supreme Court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second, fourth, and tenth causes of action insofar as asserted against Langione based upon arguments that were not raised ( see Matter of Pritchett , 128 AD3d 836 [2015]; Matter of Parisi , 111 AD3d 941, 944 [2013]; Baron v Brown , 101 AD3d at 917; Quizhpe v Luvin Constr. , 70 AD3d at 914).
Accordingly, upon reargument, we vacate so much of the determination in the order dated September 19, 2016, as, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs in Action No. 4 on the second, fourth, and tenth causes of action insofar as asserted against Langione. Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Leventhal and LaSalle, JJ., concur..