Tyme v. City of New York

22 A.D.3d 571, 801 N.Y.S.2d 744
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 11, 2005·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover , damages for personal injuries, the defendant Arthur J. Schloerb appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated November 23, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On this record, the defendant Arthur J. Schloerb failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Obie v Catsimatidis, 10 AD3d 569 [2004]; Brown v O’Connor, 193 AD2d 1088 [1993]). Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly determined that granting summary judgment before the beginning of discovery would have been premature given the nature of the allegations made in the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Sportiello v City of New York, 6 AD3d 421, 422 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Tyme v. City of New York, 22 A.D.3d 571, 801 N.Y.S.2d 744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

22 A.D.3d 571 (Tyme v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gardner v. Cason, Inc.
82 A.D.3d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Cardone v. Poidamani
73 A.D.3d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)