Brown v. Krueger

13 A.D.3d 1182, 786 N.Y.S.2d 778, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16371
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2004·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered October 7, 2003. The order denied without prejudice the motion of defendants Deargate Homes Limited and Frank Mauro for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against defendant Frank Mauro.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied without prejudice the motion of Deargate Homes Limited and Frank Mauro (defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against Mauro. Where, as here, “the facts essential to opposing defendants’] motion may exist but cannot [1183] be stated without conducting discovery of employees of defendants and others, the court should . . . den[y] the motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f)” (Perotto Dev. Corp. v Sear-Brown Group, 269 AD2d 749, 749 [2000]; see Borland v Sampson Steel Fabricators, 298 AD2d 831, 833 [2002]; Sumell v Wegmans Food Mkts., 254 AD2d 702 [1998]). Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

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

Brown v. Krueger, 13 A.D.3d 1182, 786 N.Y.S.2d 778, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

13 A.D.3d 1182 (Brown v. Krueger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

VOIGT, TIMOTHY v. SAVARINO CONSTRUCTION CORP.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Voigt v. Savarino Construction Corp.
94 A.D.3d 1574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Nesathurai v. University at Buffalo
23 A.D.3d 1070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)