Anderson v. Rehabilitation Programs Foundation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Rehabilitation Programs Foundation, Inc.

240 A.D.2d 524, 659 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6622

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages arising from the suspension and revocation of an operating certificate to operate a residence for developmentally disabled adults, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the defendants’ alleged negligence proximately caused his injuries (see, McIntyre v Beaver Dam Winter Sports Club, 163 AD2d 277).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court did not act prematurely in granting the motion even though discovery had not been completed. The mere hope that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process does not justify a delay on the part of the court in determining the motion (see, Mazzaferro v Barterama Corp., 218 AD2d 643). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages arising from the suspension and revocation of an operating certificate to operate a residence for developmentally disabled adults, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the defendants’ alleged negligence proximately caused his injuries (see, McIntyre v Beaver Dam Winter Sports Club, 163 AD2d 277).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court did not act prematurely in granting the motion even though discovery had not been completed. The mere hope that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process does not justify a delay on the part of the court in determining the motion (see, Mazzaferro v Barterama Corp., 218 AD2d 643). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Anderson v. Rehabilitation Programs Foundation, Inc., 240 A.D.2d 524, 659 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

240 A.D.2d 524 (Anderson v. Rehabilitation Programs Foundation, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related