Gellman v. Latimore

242 A.D.2d 920, 665 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10496
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 30, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied [921] without prejudice plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendant’s counterclaims pending completion of discovery. Defendant raised material issues of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Furthermore, defendant has not yet had the opportunity to depose plaintiff. Summary judgment is inappropriate where, as here, “ ‘the existence of essential facts depends upon knowledge exclusively within the possession of the moving party and [such facts] might well be disclosed by * * * examination before trial’ ” or further disclosure (Kindzierski v Foster, 217 AD2d 998, 1000; see, Busby v Ticonderoga Cent. School Dist, 222 AD2d 882). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Amend Pleading.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

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

Gellman v. Latimore, 242 A.D.2d 920, 665 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

242 A.D.2d 920 (Gellman v. Latimore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mulvihill v. Spinnato
228 Conn. App. 781 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2024)