CPLR R. 3212
Motion for summary judgment
(f)
Facts unavailable to opposing party
Essex Ins. Co. v Michael Cunningham Carpentry, 2010 NY Slip Op 04732 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)
Andreassen's contention that the motion for summary judgment was
premature is without merit. It failed to offer any evidentiary basis to
suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence. The hope and
speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat the motion might be
uncovered during discovery was an insufficient basis to deny the motion (see Peerless Ins. Co. v Micro Fibertek, Inc., 67
AD3d 978, 979; Tedesco v Tedesco, 64 AD3d 583, 584; Conte v Frelen Assoc., LLC, 51 AD3d 620,
621).
There are plenty of cases on this issue, but I like the brevity of this one.
Just after I read this one, I found another.
Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. Network, 2010 NY Slip Op 04735 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)
CPLR 3212(f) permits a party opposing summary judgment to obtain further
discovery when it appears that facts supporting the position of the
opposing party exist but cannot be stated (see Aurora Loan Servs.,
LLC v LaMattina & Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578; Juseinoski v New
York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 29 AD3d 636, 637). Under the
circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied that
branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the
complaint as premature, without prejudice to renew (see Matter of
Fasciglione,AD3d, 2010 NY Slip Op 03926 [2d Dept 2010]; Baron v
Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d [*2]792,
792-793).
And one from the First Department.
Montalvo v Chiaramonte, 2010 NY Slip Op 04707 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)
Neither plaintiffs nor Chiaramonte submitted any affidavits or evidence
to show that "facts essential to justify opposition [to the Tarts'
motion] may exist but cannot then be stated" (CPLR 3212[f]). Nor did
they ever challenge the motion court's finding that the "Tart vehicle
never came into contact with the decedent."
bruteforcelawyer.com 