History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gellman v. Latimore
242 A.D.2d 920
| N.Y. App. Div. | 1997
|
Check Treatment

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied *921without prejudice plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendant’s counterclaims pending completion of discovery. Defendant raised material issues of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Furthermore, defendant has not yet had the opportunity to depose plaintiff. Summary judgment is inappropriate where, as here, “ ‘the existence of essential facts depends upon knowledge exclusively within the possession of the moving party and [such facts] might well be disclosed by * * * examination before trial’ ” or further disclosure (Kindzierski v Foster, 217 AD2d 998, 1000; see, Busby v Ticonderoga Cent. School Dist, 222 AD2d 882). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Amend Pleading.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Gellman v. Latimore
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Sep 30, 1997
Citation: 242 A.D.2d 920
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.