Mazzola v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazzola v. Kelly

291 A.D.2d 535, 738 N.Y.S.2d 246, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2008

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 535 (Mazzola v. Kelly) 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

Mazzola v. Kelly, 291 A.D.2d 535, 738 N.Y.S.2d 246, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant We Transport, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 30, 2001, which denied as premature its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff has not yet had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery into several relevant issues that are exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Firesearch Corp. v Micro Computer Controls Corp., 240 AD2d 365, 366; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied, as premature, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, 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 personal injuries, the defendant We Transport, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 30, 2001, which denied as premature its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff has not yet had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery into several relevant issues that are exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Firesearch Corp. v Micro Computer Controls Corp., 240 AD2d 365, 366; Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied, as premature, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 535, 738 N.Y.S.2d 246, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzola-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack