Richardson v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richardson v. New York City Transit Authority

51 A.D.3d 899, 856 N.Y.S.2d 883

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

DecidedMay 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 899 (Richardson v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Richardson v. New York City Transit Authority, 51 A.D.3d 899, 856 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal [900]*900injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated February 16, 2007, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

“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]; see Venables v Sagona, 46 AD3d 672 [2007]; Fazio v Brandywine Realty Trust, 29 AD3d 939 [2006]). Since the plaintiffs and the defendant Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., have not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant City of New York with leave to renew after depositions are conducted. Skelos, J.E, Fisher, Covello and Eng, 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 [900]*900injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated February 16, 2007, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

“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]; see Venables v Sagona, 46 AD3d 672 [2007]; Fazio v Brandywine Realty Trust, 29 AD3d 939 [2006]). Since the plaintiffs and the defendant Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., have not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant City of New York with leave to renew after depositions are conducted. Skelos, J.E, Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 899, 856 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack