From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yun-Shou Gao v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 2006
29 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

8580.

May 23, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered December 8, 2005, which denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants' liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Caesar Napoli, New York (Robert Stein of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ., Concur.


The motion was made before any disclosure had been conducted and was properly denied in the circumstances presented ( see CPLR 3212 [f]; McGlynn v. Palace Co., 262 AD2d 116). Our affirmance is without prejudice to plaintiffs' renewal of the motion after completion of disclosure ( see id.).


Summaries of

Yun-Shou Gao v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 2006
29 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Yun-Shou Gao v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:YUN-SHOU GAO et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 23, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4007
814 N.Y.S.2d 523

Citing Cases

Worbes Corp. v. Sebrow

Notwithstanding the foregoing, CPLR § 3212(f) mandates denial of a motion for summary judgment when a motion…

Titumir v. Barker Ave. Estates

Thus, additional discovery should not be ordered where the proponent of the additional discovery has failed…