Monno v. Owusu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Monno v. Owusu

232 A.D.2d 461, 648 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10210

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 461 (Monno v. Owusu) 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

Monno v. Owusu, 232 A.D.2d 461, 648 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 22, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to the plaintiff’s contention that the facts needed to ascertain whether the defendant Clifford Owusu was acting in the course of his employment as a New York City Correction Officer at the time of the accident were within the exclusive knowledge of the City of New York.

The plaintiff’s contention that there was discovery pending at the time of the City’s cross motion for summary judgment is insufficient to defeat the motion. Allegations of mere hope that the discovery will reveal something helpful to the plaintiff’s case provided no basis for postponing determination of the City’s motion (see, Bryan v City of New York, 206 AD2d 448). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 22, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to the plaintiff’s contention that the facts needed to ascertain whether the defendant Clifford Owusu was acting in the course of his employment as a New York City Correction Officer at the time of the accident were within the exclusive knowledge of the City of New York.

The plaintiff’s contention that there was discovery pending at the time of the City’s cross motion for summary judgment is insufficient to defeat the motion. Allegations of mere hope that the discovery will reveal something helpful to the plaintiff’s case provided no basis for postponing determination of the City’s motion (see, Bryan v City of New York, 206 AD2d 448). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 461, 648 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monno-v-owusu-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack