Williams v. Village of Endicott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Village of Endicott

202 A.D.2d 885, 610 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2838

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 885 (Williams v. Village of Endicott) 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

Williams v. Village of Endicott, 202 A.D.2d 885, 610 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Coutant, J.), entered April 29, 1993 in Broome County, which, inter alia, granted a motion by defendant Endicott Sertoma Club for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiffs’ only contention on appeal is that Supreme Court erred by granting the summary judgment motion of defendant Endicott Sertoma Club before plaintiffs had the opportunity to depose a representative of Endicott. A review of the record reveals, however, that there is absolutely no reason to believe [886]*886that further discovery would turn up any basis for liability against Endicott. Although CPLR 3212 (f) permits an opposing party to obtain further discovery, it should not be used when, as here, there has been a failure to demonstrate that the discovery being sought is anything more than a fishing expedition to explore the possibility of a cause of action.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Coutant, J.), entered April 29, 1993 in Broome County, which, inter alia, granted a motion by defendant Endicott Sertoma Club for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiffs’ only contention on appeal is that Supreme Court erred by granting the summary judgment motion of defendant Endicott Sertoma Club before plaintiffs had the opportunity to depose a representative of Endicott. A review of the record reveals, however, that there is absolutely no reason to believe [886]*886that further discovery would turn up any basis for liability against Endicott. Although CPLR 3212 (f) permits an opposing party to obtain further discovery, it should not be used when, as here, there has been a failure to demonstrate that the discovery being sought is anything more than a fishing expedition to explore the possibility of a cause of action.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 885, 610 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-village-of-endicott-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack