You are here: / / Pre-Deposition Motion for Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Grante...

Pre-Deposition Motion for Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined a pre-deposition motion for summary judgment was premature and should not have been granted:

“A party opposing summary judgment is entitled to obtain further discovery when it appears that facts supporting the opposing party’s position may exist but cannot then be stated” … . This is especially so where the motion for summary judgment was made prior to the parties conducting depositions … .Here, an award of summary judgment would be premature at this stage of the action. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was made prior to the deposition of the plaintiff. In light of the fact that the plaintiff was the sole witness to the accident, and that his account of the accident has been placed in issue, the defendant should have been afforded the opportunity to conduct his deposition … . Schlichting v Elliquence Realty LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02281, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Referee’s Authority Exceeded—Authority Comes from Consent of the Parties
FATHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PROCEEDING TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF A GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION POLICY DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

New York City Street-Sweeping Vehicles Are Now Exempt from the Rules of the... Motion for Voluntary Discontinuance Should Not Have Been Granted “With...