From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steinberg v. Abdul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 8, 1996
230 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

August 8, 1996


Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered July 10, 1995, which granted the motions of defendants-respondents Fisher Development Corp., Michael McCormack and Aidan Martin seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Lebedeff, J., without costs.

We add that the mere hope, expressed by plaintiffs, that evidence sufficient to establish defendants' assumption of a duty to plaintiffs' decedent may be obtained during discovery does not fulfill their obligation to demonstrate the likelihood of such disclosure (CPLR 3212 [f]) and, thus, is insufficient to defeat defendants' motions for summary judgment ( Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 A.D.2d 609, 610).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.


Summaries of

Steinberg v. Abdul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 8, 1996
230 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Steinberg v. Abdul

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD STEINBERG et al., as Coadministrators of the Estate of LISA…

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

Date published: Aug 8, 1996

Citations

230 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 672

Citing Cases

Thirty-One Co. v. Haggerty

ng that further discovery will yield material and relevant evidence'" ( Heritage Hills Soc., Ltd. v Heritage…

Tejada v. Gomez

It is well settled that an argument opposing summary judgment on the grounds of insufficient discovery "is…