Tyme v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tyme v. City of New York

22 A.D.3d 571, 801 N.Y.S.2d 744

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 571 (Tyme v. City of New York) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 571, 801 N.Y.S.2d 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyme-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack