Adrianis v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adrianis v. Fox

30 A.D.3d 550, 817 N.Y.S.2d 374

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

DecidedJune 20, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 550 (Adrianis v. Fox) 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

Adrianis v. Fox, 30 A.D.3d 550, 817 N.Y.S.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Richard Viera and Fernando G. Rossi appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated September 21, 2005, which denied, as premature, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto that the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is with leave to renew upon the completion of the defendant Daniel Fox’s deposition; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the [551]*551complaint insofar as asserted against them, as the deposition of the defendant Daniel Fox had not been conducted and the parties had previously stipulated to depose Fox only seven days after this motion was made (see Groves v Land’s End Hous. Co., 80 NY2d 978 [1992]; Afzal v Board of Fire Commrs. of Bellmore Fire Dist., 23 AD3d 507 [2005]; Whelan v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 19 AD3d 483 [2005]; Rengifo v City of New York, 7 AD3d 773 [2004]). However, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion with leave to renew following completion of the Fox deposition (see Johnson v Verrilli, 139 AD2d 497 [1988]; Kaminester v Weintraub, 131 AD2d 440, 441 [1987]). Miller, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Richard Viera and Fernando G. Rossi appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated September 21, 2005, which denied, as premature, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto that the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is with leave to renew upon the completion of the defendant Daniel Fox’s deposition; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the [551]*551complaint insofar as asserted against them, as the deposition of the defendant Daniel Fox had not been conducted and the parties had previously stipulated to depose Fox only seven days after this motion was made (see Groves v Land’s End Hous. Co., 80 NY2d 978 [1992]; Afzal v Board of Fire Commrs. of Bellmore Fire Dist., 23 AD3d 507 [2005]; Whelan v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 19 AD3d 483 [2005]; Rengifo v City of New York, 7 AD3d 773 [2004]). However, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion with leave to renew following completion of the Fox deposition (see Johnson v Verrilli, 139 AD2d 497 [1988]; Kaminester v Weintraub, 131 AD2d 440, 441 [1987]). Miller, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 550, 817 N.Y.S.2d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adrianis-v-fox-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack