ARIAS v. ALLEN REYEN INC (2022)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Allen J. Reyen, Inc., appeals, and the defendant Allen J. Reyen separately appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Janet C. Malone, J.), dated December 9, 2019.  The order denied the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto that the denials of the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them are without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery;  as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a ladder while performing certain work on a barn located on property in Pound Ridge.  He thereafter commenced this action against the defendants, Allen J. Reyen and Allen J. Reyen, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, as well as common-law negligence.  Prior to the completion of the parties’ depositions, the defendants separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.  The Supreme Court denied the motions.  The defendants separately appeal.

“A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment” (Salameh v. Yarkovski, 156 A.D.3d 659, 660, 64 N.Y.S.3d 569;  see Rutherford v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Dev. Corp., 174 A.D.3d 932, 933, 105 N.Y.S.3d 518;  Okula v. City of New York, 147 A.D.3d 967, 968, 48 N.Y.S.3d 191;  Brea v. Salvatore, 130 A.D.3d 956, 956, 13 N.Y.S.3d 839).  Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff was entitled to conduct discovery which may result in disclosure of relevant information (see CPLR 3212[f];  Cantor–Sanchez v. Gonzalez–Socarras, 189 A.D.3d 977, 133 N.Y.S.3d 920;  Pinella v. Crescent St. Corp., 176 A.D.3d 985, 987, 110 N.Y.S.3d 705).  Accordingly, the motions should have been denied without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.

BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.