Schlau v. City of Buffalo

96 A.D.3d 1589, 946 N.Y.S.2d 772
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 2012
DocketAppeal No. 1
StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 1589 (Schlau v. City of Buffalo) 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
Schlau v. City of Buffalo, 96 A.D.3d 1589, 946 N.Y.S.2d 772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered February 17, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order and judgment, among other things, granted the motion of defendant Frey Electric Construction Co., Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claims against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion [1590]*1590of Frey Electric Construction Co., Inc. without prejudice and reinstating the amended complaint and cross claims against it and as modified the order and judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, an employee of a concessionaire at defendant HSBC Arena (Arena), commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained after receiving an electrical shock from the handle of an electronically secured door at the Arena. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Frey Electric Construction Co., Inc. (Frey) seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claims against it. Frey’s “motion is premature because discovery has not been completed, including depositions concerning the respective roles, if any, of the parties involved in the accident” (Syracuse Univ. v Games 2002, LLC, 71 AD3d 1531, 1531-1532 [2010]). We therefore modify the order and judgment by denying Frey’s motion without prejudice and reinstating the amended complaint and cross claims against it (see Coniber v Center Point Transfer Sta., Inc., 82 AD3d 1629 [2011]; Hobbs v Enprotech Corp., 12 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2004]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

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

Related

Hobbs v. Enprotech Corp.
12 A.D.3d 1063 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Syracuse University v. Games 2002, LLC
71 A.D.3d 1531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Coniber v. Center Point Transfer Station, Inc.
82 A.D.3d 1629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 A.D.3d 1589, 946 N.Y.S.2d 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlau-v-city-of-buffalo-nyappdiv-2012.