Ruiz v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruiz v. Torres

137 A.D.3d 1100, 26 N.Y.S.3d 881

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

Docket2015-06371

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 1100 (Ruiz v. Torres) 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

Ruiz v. Torres, 137 A.D.3d 1100, 26 N.Y.S.3d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to certain real property and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the subject real property by adverse posses *1101 sion, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated October 6, 2014, which denied, as premature, their motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Prior to the exchange of any discovery, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on their complaint seeking a judgment declaring that they acquired title to the subject real property by adverse possession. In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant Manuel Torres submitted his own affidavit, which demonstrated that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiffs and, therefore, could not then be stated (see CPLR 3212 [f]; James v Aircraft Serv. Intl. Group, 84 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion as premature, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery (see James v Aircraft Serv. Intl. Group, 84 AD3d at 1027; Matter of Fasciglione, 73 AD3d 769, 770 [2010]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina & Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578, 578 [2009]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to certain real property and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the subject real property by adverse posses *1101 sion, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated October 6, 2014, which denied, as premature, their motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Prior to the exchange of any discovery, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on their complaint seeking a judgment declaring that they acquired title to the subject real property by adverse possession. In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant Manuel Torres submitted his own affidavit, which demonstrated that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiffs and, therefore, could not then be stated (see CPLR 3212 [f]; James v Aircraft Serv. Intl. Group, 84 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion as premature, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery (see James v Aircraft Serv. Intl. Group, 84 AD3d at 1027; Matter of Fasciglione, 73 AD3d 769, 770 [2010]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina & Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578, 578 [2009]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 1100, 26 N.Y.S.3d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-torres-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack