Bradley v. Ibex Construction LLC

22 A.D.3d 380, 801 N.Y.S.2d 901
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered April 21, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants-respondents’ liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant plaintiffs leave to renew the motions after completion of disclosure, and otherwise affirmed, with separate bills of costs, payable by plaintiffs.

The motions, which were made before a preliminary conference had been held and before defendants had any opportunity [381] to obtain disclosure, were properly denied as premature under the circumstances presented (see McGlynn v Palace Co., 262 AD2d 116 [1999]). However, plaintiffs should have been granted leave to renew after completion of disclosure (see id.), and we modify accordingly. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Bradley v. Ibex Construction LLC, 22 A.D.3d 380, 801 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

22 A.D.3d 380 (Bradley v. Ibex Construction LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goldstein v. Scott Seidler Family Trust
2025 NY Slip Op 31422(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Akter v. Interboro Ins. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 51483(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
Lopez v. Garcia
67 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Downey v. Local 46 2nd Holding Co.
34 A.D.3d 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)