From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Afzal v. Board of Fire Com

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2005
23 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-08631.

November 21, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), dated September 7, 2004, as denied, as premature, that branch of his cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendant Board of Fire Commissioners of the Bellmore Fire District.

DiGiovanna Khalatbari, Brooklyn, N.Y. (John C. DiGiovanna of counsel), for appellant.

Armienti, DeBellis Whiten, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael Armienti and Vanessa Corchia of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As significant discovery, including the deposition of the plaintiff, had not been completed, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendant Board of Fire Commissioners of the Bellmore Fire District ( see Groves v. Land's End Hous. Co., 80 NY2d 978; Rengifo v. City of New York, 7 AD3d 773; CPLR 3212 [f]).


Summaries of

Afzal v. Board of Fire Com

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2005
23 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Afzal v. Board of Fire Com

Case Details

Full title:MUHAMMED AFZAL, Appellant, v. BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF BELLMORE FIRE…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8937
806 N.Y.S.2d 637

Citing Cases

WILLIAMS v. JEFFREY MGT. CO.

JMC/3601 argues that Pathmark's motion, as a whole, is premature, as Pathmark has not yet appeared for a…

Mancusi v. Rothman

CPLR § 3212 (a).Adrianis v Fox, 30 AD 3d 550, 550-551 [2d Dept 2006]; and Afzal v Bd. of Fire Commissioners…