Martino v. Midtown Trackage Ventures, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 1346, 147 A.D.3d 1040, 46 N.Y.S.3d 911
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 2017
Docket2015-10274
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1346 (Martino v. Midtown Trackage Ventures, LLC) 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
Martino v. Midtown Trackage Ventures, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 1346, 147 A.D.3d 1040, 46 N.Y.S.3d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated September 16, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Tishman Construction Corporation which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Tishman Construction Corporation which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is denied, with leave to renew after the completion of discovery.

A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment (see Brea v Salvatore, 130 AD3d 956, 956 [2015]; Malester v Rampil, 118 AD3d 855, 856 [2014]). Here, the defendant Tishman Construction Corporation (hereinafter Tishman) moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it about five months after the plaintiff commenced this action. Under the circumstances of this case, at this stage of the proceedings, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Tishman’s motion with leave to renew after the completion of discovery (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Brea v Salvatore, 130 AD3d 956 [2015]; Nicholson v Bader, 83 AD3d 802 [2011]; Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 784, 785 [2007]).

Hall, J.R, Cohen, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Salameh v. Yarkovski
2017 NY Slip Op 8547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 1346, 147 A.D.3d 1040, 46 N.Y.S.3d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martino-v-midtown-trackage-ventures-llc-nyappdiv-2017.