From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Village of Endicott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 24, 1994
202 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 24, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Broome County (Coutant, J.).


Plaintiffs' only contention on appeal is that Supreme Court erred by granting the summary judgment motion of defendant Endicott Sertoma Club before plaintiffs had the opportunity to depose a representative of Endicott. A review of the record reveals, however, that there is absolutely no reason to believe that further discovery would turn up any basis for liability against Endicott. Although CPLR 3212 (f) permits an opposing party to obtain further discovery, it should not be used when, as here, there has been a failure to demonstrate that the discovery being sought is anything more than a fishing expedition to explore the possibility of a cause of action.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Williams v. Village of Endicott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 24, 1994
202 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Williams v. Village of Endicott

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN R. WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF ENDICOTT et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 24, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 877

Citing Cases

Sobol v. Porter

[638 N.Y.S.2d 997]Nevertheless, while plaintiff also alleged that Cronin and Porter made other slanderous…

Scofield v. Trustees, Union Col., Schenectady

However, an opposing party must demonstrate how further discovery might reveal material facts in the…