Summary judgment should be denied where it appears that relevant evidence needed to oppose the motion is within the exclusive knowledge of the movant, and the opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the motion for summary judgment. See CPLR 3212(f) (motion for summary judgment should be denied where it appears that facts essential to the motion exist but cannot then be stated due to the absence of discovery). See also, Logan v. City of New York, 148 AD2d 167 [1 Dept. 1989]; Simpson v. Term Industries, 126 AD2d 484 [1 Dept. 1987]. Finally, the failure of a movant to comply with discovery demands may justify the denial of the summary judgment motion. See Jones v. Town of Delaware, 251 AD2d 876 [3 Dept. 1998]. This is especially so where the information sought in the pending discovery demand is clearly specified and relevant to the issues raised by the motion, the motion should be denied. Campbell v. City of New York, 220 AD2d 476 [2 Dept. 1995]; Elliot v. County of Nassau, 53 AD3d 561 [2 Dept. 2008] (A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment). ———– copyr. 2012 Richard A. Klass, Esq. The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post Previous post