Baron v. Incorporated Village

143 A.D.2d 792, 533 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by61 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 792 (Baron v. Incorporated Village) 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
Baron v. Incorporated Village, 143 A.D.2d 792, 533 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated September 17, 1987, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Walter Baron alleges that on November 8, 1985, he tripped over a raised section of a parking lot owned by the defendant, thus sustaining serious injuries. Subsequent to joinder of issue, a preliminary conference order scheduled the deposition of the defendant for February 10, 1987. At the request of the defendant, this was adjourned a number of times, the last being from April 22, 1987 to June 3, 1987. However, by notice of motion dated May 7, 1987, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no prior written notice of the defect and that the parking lot was constructed by independent contractors.

It is well established that where facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant, summary [793]*793judgment may be denied (see, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 262). This is especially so where the opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the motion (see, Rensco Fed. Credit Union v Hooley, 132 AD2d 842, 843). In this case, the court correctly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment “in that the plaintiffs discovery was improperly curtailed by the [defendant’s] counsel” (Ottinger v Dempsey, 122 AD2d 125, 127; see also, Zimmerman v New York City Tr. Auth., 115 AD2d 477; Government Employees Ins. Co. v Desiderio, 104 AD2d 791).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Hooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

K - Detailing, Inc. v. N & C Ironworks, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 33588(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Gulf Harbour Invs. Corp. v. Foox
2024 NY Slip Op 33421(U) (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, 2024)
Museau v. Franklin CV Owner, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 50847(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Matter of Weinstein
2024 NY Slip Op 31111(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2024)
Kaufman v. P&G Brokerage Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 24022 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Vukel v. Joan DiGirolomo Irrevocable Trust
2019 NY Slip Op 3649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Skura v. Wojtlowski
2018 NY Slip Op 7168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Ferrera v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 5824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Blake v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 2399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
885 Park Ave. Brooklyn, LLC v. Goddard
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
885 Park Avenue Brooklyn, LLC v. Goddard
55 Misc. 3d 74 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Brielmeier v. Leal
2016 NY Slip Op 8344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lido Beach Towers v. Denis A. Miller Insurance Agency, Inc.
128 A.D.3d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Buto v. Town of Smithtown
121 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Johnson v. Richardson
120 A.D.3d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Dhanlaxmi, Inc. v. Schiller
119 A.D.3d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Dushnick v. Bellamy
119 A.D.3d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Singh v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC
117 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Postilio v. Deblasi
116 A.D.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 A.D.2d 792, 533 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-v-incorporated-village-nyappdiv-1988.