This case presents one of those infrequent hit-in-the-rear occasions when "the defendant submitted evidence suggesting that further discovery might lead to relevant evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the accident" (Corvino v Schineller, 168 A.D.3d 812, 813 [2d Dept 2019] [motor vehicle accident]). "The plaintiff[s] moved for summary judgment before the parties had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, as little discovery had taken place and the depositions of the parties had not yet occurred" (id. at 812-813; see also Guo Ping Gu v Malaxos, 192 A.D.3d 1087 [vehicle struck by another]).
The Court denies the defendant's summary judgment motion. The defendant moves for summary judgment before the parties have had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, as little discovery has taken place and the depositions of the parties have not yet occurred (see CPLR 3212[f]; Guo Ping Gu v Malaxos, _A.D.3d_ 2021 NY Slip Op 01966 [2d Dept March 31, 2021]; Sodhi v 112 Park Enters., LLC, 147 A.D.3d 1000, 1001 [2d Dept 2017]). Moreover, the record reflects that discovery may lead to relevant evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the incident (see Guo Ping Gu v Malaxos, 2021 NY Slip Op 01966).
This delivery could have been related to JSK commencing its work in accordance with the permit it received that day. JSK's own submissions thus reflect that discovery might lead to relevant evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the accident, including whether JSK stored materials on the roof prior to the accident (see CPLR 3212[f]; Guo Ping Gu v Malaxos, 192 A.D.3d 1087, 1087).
Under the circumstances here, where the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability prior to discovery and the record reflects that discovery might lead to relevant evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the accident, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability without prejudice to renew upon the completion of discovery (see CPLR 3212[f] ; Guo Ping Gu v. Malaxos, 192 A.D.3d 1087, 1087–1088, 141 N.Y.S.3d 714 ; Corvino v. Schineller, 168 A.D.3d 812, 812–813, 90 N.Y.S.3d 294 ; Sodhi v. 112 Park Enters., LLC, 147 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 47 N.Y.S.3d 384 ). BARROS, J.P., MILLER, ZAYAS and WAN, JJ., concur.
The plaintiff cross-moved before it responded to the defendant's demand for documents that were in its possession and control or produced a witness for deposition (seeGuo Ping Gu v. Malaxos, 192 A.D.3d 1087, 141 N.Y.S.3d 714 ). Moreover, the record reflects that the outstanding discovery might lead to relevant evidence pertaining to the issues raised in the parties’ pleadings (seeCorvino v. Schineller, 168 A.D.3d 812, 813, 90 N.Y.S.3d 294 ).
The plaintiff, Navarro and Bowen should each have an opportunity to depose the other drivers involved in the subject accident. Under the circumstances here, where Bowen moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability prior to discovery and the record reflects that discovery might lead to relevant evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the accident, the prudent thing to do is to deny the motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability without prejudice to renew upon the completion of discovery (see CPLR 3212[f]; Guo Ping Gu v Malaxos, 192 A.D.3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2d Dept 2021]).
Here, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The plaintiff cross-moved before it responded to the defendant's demand for documents that were in its possession and control or produced a witness for deposition (see Guo Ping Gu v Malaxos, 192 A.D.3d 1087). Moreover, the record reflects that the outstanding discovery might lead to relevant evidence pertaining to the issues raised in the parties' pleadings (see Corvino v Schineller, 168 A.D.3d 812, 813).