Dhanlaxmi, Inc. v. Schiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dhanlaxmi, Inc. v. Schiller

119 A.D.3d 728, 989 N.Y.S.2d 329

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 16, 2014·No. 2013-07014·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), dated May 24, 2013, as denied, as premature, its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant was not given a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. Network, 74 AD3d 738, 739 [2010]; Gruenfeld v City of New Rochelle, 72 AD3d 1025 [2010]; Rodriguez v DeStefano, 72 AD3d 926 [2010]; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792 [1988]).

Mastro, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), dated May 24, 2013, as denied, as premature, its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant was not given a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. Network, 74 AD3d 738, 739 [2010]; Gruenfeld v City of New Rochelle, 72 AD3d 1025 [2010]; Rodriguez v DeStefano, 72 AD3d 926 [2010]; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792 [1988]).

Mastro, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

Dhanlaxmi, Inc. v. Schiller, 119 A.D.3d 728, 989 N.Y.S.2d 329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

119 A.D.3d 728 (Dhanlaxmi, Inc. v. Schiller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related