On January 6, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Valley Natl. Bank v. Community Prot. Church of Co-op City, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 00036, holding that a motion should not be denied based on the inadmissibility of the supporting evidence if the non-movant did not challenge the evidence on that ground, explaining:
Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion. Although it is the movant’s burden to establish its entitlement to summary judgment and the failure of the nonmovant to oppose summary judgment does not obviate the movant’s need to establish its prima facie case, a court should not examine the admissibility of evidence submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment unless the nonmoving party has specifically raised that issue in its opposition to the motion. This is because courts are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made/
On its original motion, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing, through the affidavit of a first vice president who was also the loan officer in charge of the loan’s collection and enforcement, the existence of the consolidated note, consolidated mortgage, and the existence and amount of defendant’s default. Defendant did not oppose the motion and thus did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence, and the court should not have raised evidentiary objections sua sponte.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).