Gauchan v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gauchan v. Chase Manhattan Bank

204 A.D.2d 67, 612 N.Y.S.2d 5

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 3, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 67 (Gauchan v. Chase Manhattan Bank) 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

Gauchan v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 204 A.D.2d 67, 612 N.Y.S.2d 5 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Queens County (Joan Marie Durante, J.), entered on or about January 17, 1992 in an action for personal injury, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs.

The IAS Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment where defendant failed to show, in this slip and fall personal injury action, the absence of a triable issue of fact. Not only did the court err in finding that plaintiff had not pursued discovery diligently, where defendant had failed to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests by the time the motion was submitted, but where the knowledge of salient facts remains exclusively within the possession of the moving party, a motion for summary judgment must be denied (Vitti v Maloney, 109 AD2d 836). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Queens County (Joan Marie Durante, J.), entered on or about January 17, 1992 in an action for personal injury, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs.

The IAS Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment where defendant failed to show, in this slip and fall personal injury action, the absence of a triable issue of fact. Not only did the court err in finding that plaintiff had not pursued discovery diligently, where defendant had failed to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests by the time the motion was submitted, but where the knowledge of salient facts remains exclusively within the possession of the moving party, a motion for summary judgment must be denied (Vitti v Maloney, 109 AD2d 836). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 67, 612 N.Y.S.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gauchan-v-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack