Adelman v. Island Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adelman v. Island Holding Corp.

157 A.D.2d 637, 550 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 231

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 637 (Adelman v. Island Holding Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adelman v. Island Holding Corp., 157 A.D.2d 637, 550 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), entered March 14, 1989, which, inter alia, denied their motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal of the motion after the completion of certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Island Holding Corp.

Pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), a court may deny a motion for summary judgment if it appears "that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated” (CPLR 3212 [f]; see, R.C.S. Farmers Mkts. Corp. v Great Am. Ins. Co., 56 NY2d 918, 920-921). We find that the affidavit of Abelis Rachkauskas sufficiently described essential facts believed to exist peculiarly within the plaintiffs’ knowledge (see, Koslov v New York City Hous. Auth., 140 AD2d 586; cf., Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in order to permit disclosure. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), entered March 14, 1989, which, inter alia, denied their motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal of the motion after the completion of certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Island Holding Corp.

Pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), a court may deny a motion for summary judgment if it appears "that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated” (CPLR 3212 [f]; see, R.C.S. Farmers Mkts. Corp. v Great Am. Ins. Co., 56 NY2d 918, 920-921). We find that the affidavit of Abelis Rachkauskas sufficiently described essential facts believed to exist peculiarly within the plaintiffs’ knowledge (see, Koslov v New York City Hous. Auth., 140 AD2d 586; cf., Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in order to permit disclosure. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 637, 550 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adelman-v-island-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack