Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (A. Schack, J.), entered October 7, 2002, denying its motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously modified by providing that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

The copy of defendant's purported answer attached to the motion papers pertained to an action other than the one for which summary judgment was sought (cf CPLR 3212 [b] ["A motion for summary judgment shall be supported (inter alia) by. . . a copy of the pleadings"]; CPLR 3018). Plaintiff's failure to support the motion with copies of "all of the pleadings as required by [the] statute" (Hamilton v City of New York, 262 AD2d 283 [1999]) entitled defendant, upon its timely objection (cf. Patino v Locklormer Co., 303 AD2d 731, 733 [2003]; Panzella v Shoe Rite Supermarkets, 238 AD2d 490 [1997]), to the motion's summary dismissal as facially insufficient as a matter of law (e.g. Welton v Drobnicki, 298 AD2d 757 [2002] ["Because plaintiffs did not include a copy of the answer with their moving papers, they failed to satisfy their initial burden on the motion ..."]; see also DiSano v KBH Constr. Co., 280 AD2d 951, 952 [2001]; Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692 [1990]), "regardless of the merits" (Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Piper, 286 AD2d 903, 904 [2001]). As we do not reach the issue of the propriety of the motion's denial on the merits, we modify the order to permit plaintiff to renew the motion on papers that include copies of all pleadings (see Welton v Drobnicki, 298 AD2d 757 [2002]; Krasner v Transcontinental Equities, 64 AD2d 551 [1978]). [*2]
Decision Date: December 09, 2003