Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jerzy DABROWSKI et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. ABAX INCORPORATED etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York (Francis A. Kahn III, J.), entered July 15, 2022, which denied defendants’ motions for an extension of time to file dispositive pretrial motions and for an extension of the time to complete discovery and to compel the deposition of a specified class member, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for an extension of their time to move for summary judgment, as they failed to demonstrate good cause for a late summary judgment motion (see Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 652, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431 [2004]; Filannino v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 34 A.D.3d 280, 282, 824 N.Y.S.2d 244 [1st Dept. 2006], appeal dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 862, 840 N.Y.S.2d 765, 872 N.E.2d 878 [2007]). Defendants did not show how any of the outstanding discovery was essential to their proposed summary judgment motion, or even what the basis for their motion would be were they permitted to take additional depositions (see id.; Fuczynski v. 144 Div., LLC, 208 A.D.3d 1153, 1155, 175 N.Y.S.3d 82 [2d Dept. 2022]; cf. Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 124, 129, 711 N.Y.S.2d 131, 733 N.E.2d 203 [2000] [good cause shown where the defendant moved for summary judgment shortly after receiving deposition transcript of “crucial” eyewitness]). To the extent defendants plan to move to decertify the class in accordance with CPLR 902, we express no opinion on whether such a motion would be timely.
For the same reason, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for an extension of time to complete discovery and to compel the deposition of another class member (CPLR 2004; see Alveranga–Duran v. New Whitehall Apts. L.L.C., 40 A.D.3d 287, 289, 836 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept. 2007]). Defendants already had been given ample time to conduct the necessary discovery, and did not explain why the additional deposition would be relevant (see Tavarez v. Ronad Holding Corp., 202 A.D.3d 423, 424, 158 N.Y.S.3d 561 [1st Dept. 2022]).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 305
Decided: May 23, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)