From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bond v. DeMasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 1292 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2011-01270.

May 31, 2011.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated December 20, 2010, which denied, as premature, their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Robert P. Sharron Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellants.

James J. Toomey, New York, N.Y. (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability ( see CPLR 3212 [f]; Lambert v Sklar, 61 AD3d 939, 940; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578). The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability prior to the parties' depositions. The defendants did not have an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery ( see Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 784, 785). Moreover, the plaintiff Anne F. Bond and the defendant Rita J. DeMasco submitted, among other things, affidavits containing certain discrepancies pertaining to the circumstances of the subject accident ( see Gardner v Cason, Inc., 82 AD3d 930; Cardone v Poidamani, 73 AD3d 828).


Summaries of

Bond v. DeMasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 1292 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Bond v. DeMasco

Case Details

Full title:ANNE F. BOND et al., Appellants, v. RITA J. DEMASCO et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 31, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 1292 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4615
923 N.Y.S.2d 902

Citing Cases

Yuhua Han v. Gladyshev

No one has been deposed, and the defendant has not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery.…

Chander v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.

No one has been deposed, and the defendant has not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery.…