Video Voice, Inc. v. Local T.V., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Video Voice, Inc. v. Local T.V., Inc.

114 A.D.3d 935, 980 N.Y.S.2d 828

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 2014·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the parties’ rights and obligations under a lease and to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated August 22, 2012, which, in effect, denied, as premature, its motion for summary judgment, among other things, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment” (Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 784, 785 [2007]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, as premature, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Hillside Cycles, Inc., 89 AD3d 653, 654 [2011]; Silver v Silver, 63 AD3d 903 [2009]; Elliot v County of Nassau, 53 AD3d 561, 563 [2008]; Venables v Sagona, 46 AD3d 672, 673 [2007]). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the parties’ rights and obligations under a lease and to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated August 22, 2012, which, in effect, denied, as premature, its motion for summary judgment, among other things, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment” (Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 784, 785 [2007]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, as premature, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Hillside Cycles, Inc., 89 AD3d 653, 654 [2011]; Silver v Silver, 63 AD3d 903 [2009]; Elliot v County of Nassau, 53 AD3d 561, 563 [2008]; Venables v Sagona, 46 AD3d 672, 673 [2007]). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Video Voice, Inc. v. Local T.V., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 935, 980 N.Y.S.2d 828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

114 A.D.3d 935 (Video Voice, Inc. v. Local T.V., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related