ABRAMOV v. LLC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2024, which denied defendant Reidy Contracting Group, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly concluded that Reidy's motion was premature as defendants 230 SPE PAS and Chase had not yet had the opportunity to depose parties with knowledge of the relevant issues, such as the role, if any, that the scaffolding and the lighting played in the accident, and whether any inadequate lighting was corrected prior to the accident (see Chiu Shing Tsang v. Ng, 235 A.D.3d 460, 461, 228 N.Y.S.3d 29 [1st Dept. 2025]).

Defendants 230 SPE PAS and Chase relied on more than mere hope and speculation in seeking discovery (see Smith v. Kixby Hotel, 234 A.D.3d 459, 459, 223 N.Y.S.3d 108 [1st Dept. 2025]).  They cited a violation notice for inadequate lighting under the scaffolding that was issued approximately two and a half months before the accident.  While Reidy presented evidence that the lighting condition was corrected approximately one month before the accident, that was done in reply to those defendants’ opposition to its motion, and they had no opportunity to respond to the evidence.  They should be permitted to obtain discovery on the lighting issue and whether it was a factor in plaintiff's fall (see Guayara v. H.P.S.O.N.Y., Inc, 238 A.D.3d 451, 451, 231 N.Y.S.3d 490 [1st Dept. 2025]).  Reidy argues that at plaintiff's 50-h hearing he testified that the accident was caused by a crack in the sidewalk.  However, neither 230 PAS SPE nor Chase were present at the 50-h hearing, and that testimony is inadmissible against them (see Claypool v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 33, 35, 699 N.Y.S.2d 363 [1st Dept. 1999]).

We have considered Reidy's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.