LIN v. W.R. Plumbing and Heating Corp., appellant, et al., defendants. (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant W.R. Plumbing and Heating Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cassandra A. Johnson, J.), entered July 3, 2024.  The order denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants Cheng Liu and Sai Li.

In November 2020, E.I., an infant, allegedly was injured when a radiator pipe detached from the wall of the apartment in which the infant resided and scalded her.  In June 2021, the plaintiff, the father and natural guardian of the infant, commenced this action against, among others, the defendant W.R. Plumbing and Heating Corp. (hereinafter W.R. Plumbing), which allegedly had performed certain work at the premises, and the defendants Cheng Liu and Sai Li, the owners of the premises (hereinafter together the owners).  The owners interposed an answer, asserting cross-claims against W.R. Plumbing, among others, seeking contribution and common-law and contractual indemnification.  Prior to the completion of discovery, W.R. Plumbing moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it.  In an order entered July 3, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the motion as premature.  W.R. Plumbing appeals.

“ ‘A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment’ ” (Rosenblum v. City of New York, 230 A.D.3d 1175, 1175, 216 N.Y.S.3d 295, quoting Malester v. Rampil, 118 A.D.3d 855, 856, 988 N.Y.S.2d 226;  see Harrinarain v. Sisters of St. Joseph, 205 A.D.3d 893, 894, 166 N.Y.S.3d 603).  “ ‘A party opposing summary judgment is entitled to obtain further discovery when it appears that facts supporting the opposing party's position may exist but cannot then be stated’ ” (Rosenblum v. City of New York, 230 A.D.3d at 1175, 216 N.Y.S.3d 295, quoting Salameh v. Yarkovski, 156 A.D.3d 659, 660, 64 N.Y.S.3d 569;  see CPLR 3212[f]).  “ ‘A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant’ ” (Knowles v. 21–43 27th St., LLC, 224 A.D.3d 737, 738, 205 N.Y.S.3d 177, quoting Cajas–Romero v. Ward, 106 A.D.3d 850, 852, 965 N.Y.S.2d 559;  see Sarceno v. Manhattan View, LLC, 230 A.D.3d 1176, 1177, 218 N.Y.S.3d 435).

Here, at the time W.R. Plumbing moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it, no deposition of its owner had been conducted.  Further, the plaintiff demonstrated that discovery might lead to relevant evidence regarding, inter alia, the scope of the work that W.R. Plumbing contracted to perform.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of W.R. Plumbing for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it as premature (see Sarceno v. Manhattan View, LLC, 230 A.D.3d at 1177, 218 N.Y.S.3d 435;  Rosenblum v. City of New York, 230 A.D.3d at 1176, 216 N.Y.S.3d 295;  Knowles v. 21–43 27th St., LLC, 224 A.D.3d at 738, 205 N.Y.S.3d 177).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

BARROS, J.P., WARHIT, TAYLOR and GOLIA, JJ., concur.