Opinion
2018–00110 Index No. 510384/15
12-05-2018
Matthias AMYOTTE, Appellant, v. ARMIC SERVICE CORP., et al., Respondents.
Ogen & Sedaghati, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Eitan Alexander Ogen of counsel), for appellant. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for respondents.
Ogen & Sedaghati, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Eitan Alexander Ogen of counsel), for appellant.
Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for respondents.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), dated May 12, 2016. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability without prejudice to renew upon the completion of discovery.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In a personal injury action, a party should generally be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212[f] ; Brea v. Salvatore, 130 A.D.3d 956, 13 N.Y.S.3d 839 ). Here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability less than three weeks after the defendants filed their answer, and under the unique circumstances of this case, the defendants did not have an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery (see Chander v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc., 153 A.D.3d 658, 57 N.Y.S.3d 893 ; Okula v. City of New York, 147 A.D.3d 967, 968, 48 N.Y.S.3d 191 ; Brea v. Salvatore, 130 A.D.3d at 956–957, 13 N.Y.S.3d 839 ). Accordingly, we will not disturb the Supreme Court's determination to deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability without prejudice to renew upon the completion of discovery.
CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.