Ramirez v. McAllister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. McAllister

117 A.D.3d 932, 985 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedMay 21, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.3d 932 (Ramirez v. McAllister) 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

Ramirez v. McAllister, 117 A.D.3d 932, 985 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[933]*933“A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment” (Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 784, 785 [2007]). Here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability shortly after joinder of issue, before the defendants had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion without prejudice to renewal (see Video Voice, Inc. v Local T.V., Inc., 114 AD3d 935 [2014]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Hillside Cycles, Inc., 89 AD3d 653 [2011]; Bond v DeMasco, 84 AD3d 1292 [2011]).

Eng, EJ., Skelos, Dillon and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

[933]*933“A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment” (Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 784, 785 [2007]). Here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability shortly after joinder of issue, before the defendants had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion without prejudice to renewal (see Video Voice, Inc. v Local T.V., Inc., 114 AD3d 935 [2014]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Hillside Cycles, Inc., 89 AD3d 653 [2011]; Bond v DeMasco, 84 AD3d 1292 [2011]).

Eng, EJ., Skelos, Dillon and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 932, 985 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-mcallister-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack