DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross claim by L.K. Comstock Co., Inc., against New York Paving, Inc., is reinstated.
The defendant New York Paving, Inc. (hereinafter Paving) was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cross claim asserted against it by the appellant L.K. Comstock Co., Inc. (hereinafter Comstock). The papers submitted in support of the motion failed to include copies of all of the pleadings as required by statute ( see, CPLR 3212[b]; Lawlor v. County of Nassau, 166 A.D.2d 692; Somers Realty Corp. v. Big "V" Props., 149 A.D.2d 581; Freeman v. Easy Glider Roller Rink, 114 A.D.2d 436). Moreover, Paving relied upon a hearsay document containing a notation written by an unknown person which purported to state the date on which Paving commenced work at the location of the accident ( see, Albrecht v. Area Bus Corp., 249 A.D.2d 253; Jajoute v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 242 A.D.2d 674; Ginsberg v. North Shore Hosp., 213 A.D.2d 592; Rush v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 92 A.D.2d 1072). Paving failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and we therefore need not reach the question of the sufficiency of the evidence presented in opposition to the motion ( see, CPLR 4518[a]; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851).