Summary
holding "[p]laintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied as premature in light of the incomplete state of discovery, including the lack of any depositions"
Summary of this case from Ardizzone v. Summit Glory LLCOpinion
2013-05-21
Fawwaz ALI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Blair EFFRON, et al., Defendants, Irwin Cohen, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
The Orlow Firm, Roslyn Harbor (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for appellant. Hoey, King, Epstein, Prezioso & Marquez, New York (Andrew G. Sfouggatakis of counsel), for Irwin Cohen, respondent.
The Orlow Firm, Roslyn Harbor (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for appellant. Hoey, King, Epstein, Prezioso & Marquez, New York (Andrew G. Sfouggatakis of counsel), for Irwin Cohen, respondent.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for Abbylara Service, Corp., respondent.
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Jeffrey R. Beitler of counsel), for Vandeberg Architects, respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, FREEDMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 2, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Abbylara Service, Corp.'s (Abbylara) motion to transfer venue from New York County to Suffolk County for consolidation with another action pending there, and denied as premature plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against defendants Abbylara and Irwin Cohen without prejudice and with leave to renew in Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied as premature in light of the incomplete state of discovery, including the lack of any depositions ( see Wilson v. Yemen Realty Corp., 74 A.D.3d 544, 903 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept. 2010];McGlynn v. Palace Co., 262 A.D.2d 116, 691 N.Y.S.2d 514 [1st Dept. 1999] ).
In this action alleging violations of the Labor Law resulting in personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while he was performing construction work at a house located in Suffolk County, plaintiff's contention that the motion court improperly granted a transfer of venue to Suffolk County and consolidation with a case pending there is unavailing. The Suffolk County action was commenced prior to this one, both actions arose from the same accident and plaintiff fails to demonstrate any prejudice to the parties or inconvenience to material witnesses ( see Velasquez v. C.F.T., Inc., 240 A.D.2d 178, 657 N.Y.S.2d 707 [1st Dept. 1997] ).