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.
Jonathan Gonzalez, respondent, Joseph S. Dulak, Jr., etc., plaintiff, v. Nutech Auto Sales, appellant, et al., defendants-respondents.
Argued-December 7, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Nutech Auto Sales appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Loehr, J.), entered May 4, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by adding the words “without prejudice to renewal after completion of discovery” following the words “For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On August 11, 2006, the defendant Donna Albarron allegedly purchased a car from the defendant Nutech Auto Sales (hereinafter Nutech). On the following day, the car was being driven by the defendant Steven M. Bucci when it was involved in an accident which allegedly caused the death of one of the passengers, Joseph S. Dulak III (hereinafter Dulak), the plaintiff Joseph S. Dulak, Jr.'s, decedent, and injury to the other passenger, the plaintiff Jonathan Gonzalez. Dulak's estate and Gonzalez commenced separate actions against Nutech, Bucci, and Albarron; these actions were later consolidated. Nutech moved for summary judgment and submitted documents allegedly showing that ownership of the car had been transferred to Albarron the day before the accident. Based on this transfer, Nutech argued that it could not be liable in this case. The Supreme Court denied the motion as premature and on the merits. We modify.
Under the circumstances of this case, since the motion was premature as no discovery had yet taken place (see CPLR 3212[f]; Harvey v. Nealis, 61 AD3d 935; Valdivia v Consolidated Resistance Co. of Am., Inc., 54 AD3d 753), the Supreme Court erred in determining the motion on the merits.
SANTUCCI, J.P., BALKIN, ENG and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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: 2009-04937 (Index No. 3862 /07)
Decided: January 19, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)