Shellberry v. Albright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shellberry v. Albright

262 A.D.2d 942, 693 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091

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

DecidedJune 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 942 (Shellberry v. Albright) 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

Shellberry v. Albright, 262 A.D.2d 942, 693 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Edwin J. Shoemaker for summary judgment with leave to renew upon completion of all discovery. Where pertinent facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant and may be revealed through pretrial discovery, summary judgment should be denied (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Blue Bird Coach Lines v 107 Del. Ave., 125 AD2d 971; Mack v Gregory Mem. Hosp., 90 AD2d 969). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ. (Filed May 12, 1999.)

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Edwin J. Shoemaker for summary judgment with leave to renew upon completion of all discovery. Where pertinent facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant and may be revealed through pretrial discovery, summary judgment should be denied (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Blue Bird Coach Lines v 107 Del. Ave., 125 AD2d 971; Mack v Gregory Mem. Hosp., 90 AD2d 969). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ. (Filed May 12, 1999.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 942, 693 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shellberry-v-albright-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack