Cosmos Mason Supplies, Inc. v. Lido Beach Associates, Inc.

95 A.D.2d 818, 464 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18750
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 818 (Cosmos Mason Supplies, Inc. v. Lido Beach Associates, Inc.) 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
Cosmos Mason Supplies, Inc. v. Lido Beach Associates, Inc., 95 A.D.2d 818, 464 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated August 31, 1982, which granted defendants, Lido Beach Associates, Inc., and First American Title Cos., motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to renewal following a reasonable time for discovery. Respondents shall serve their answer within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. When facts are necessary for a party to properly oppose a motion to dismiss, and those facts are within the sole knowledge or possession of the movant, discovery is sanctioned if it has been demonstrated that such facts may exist (CPLR 3211, subd [d]; Amigo Foods Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N. Y., 39 NY2d 391, 395; Peterson v Spartan Inds., 33 NY2d 463, 466; Wiltshire v Robins Co., 88 AD2d 1097, 1098; West Mountain Corp. v Seasons of Leisure Int., 82 AD2d 931, 932; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3211:49, p 53). In this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint prior to service of an answer. Plaintiff contended in its opposing affidavit that it could not adequately rebut this motion without discovery of an alleged escrow agreement between the respondents in order to determine whether a fund exists to which plaintiff may be entitled. Therefore, Special Term should have given plaintiff the benefit of the doubt by denying the motion to dismiss and affording plaintiff the opportunity to obtain the alleged escrow agreement through disclosure. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Boris v. Bock Water Heaters, Inc.
2004 NY Slip Op 24108 (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, 2004)
Boris v. Bock Water Heaters, Inc.
3 Misc. 3d 835 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
Nice v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
193 A.D.2d 1088 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Cantor v. Levine
115 A.D.2d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Glassman v. Catli
111 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.2d 818, 464 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosmos-mason-supplies-inc-v-lido-beach-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1983.