From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rensco Federal Credit Union v. Hooley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 1987
132 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

July 16, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County (Bradley, J.).


Plaintiff instituted this action against, among others, defendant George A. De Champ to recover the unpaid balance of a note signed by De Champ as comaker and, after issue was joined, moved for summary judgment. De Champ opposed the motion on the ground that after he signed the note as comaker, plaintiff made another loan to the primary maker which consolidated the first loan and for which De Champ did not sign the note as comaker. He stated that he should be "entitled to determine the nature of the negotiations leading up to the subsequent loan" since, if the second loan consolidated the first loan, he would be relieved of his obligation as comaker. In response, plaintiff submitted its general manager's affidavit which stated that the second loan did not involve a consolidation; however, the only documentation it submitted with regard to the second loan was the primary maker's second loan application. Supreme Court continued plaintiff's motion pending disclosure proceedings, and plaintiff appeals.

We find Supreme Court's disposition of plaintiff's motion to be entirely appropriate. Under CPLR 3212 (f), when it appears that facts supporting the position of the party opposing summary judgment exist but cannot be stated, the court may order a continuance to permit disclosure to be had. While we note that defendant did not institute any disclosure proceedings prior to plaintiff's motion, it is clear that a party should be permitted a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the determination of a summary judgment motion (see, Boyer v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriters Assn., 90 A.D.2d 737, 738), and in this case less than two months elapsed between joinder of issue and the making of plaintiff's motion. We agree with Supreme Court that the record as it presently stands is inadequate for a proper determination of plaintiff's motion, and a continuance is thus appropriate.

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J.P., Main, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rensco Federal Credit Union v. Hooley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 1987
132 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Rensco Federal Credit Union v. Hooley

Case Details

Full title:RENSCO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Appellant, v. D. GEORGE HOOLEY et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 16, 1987

Citations

132 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

McGill v. Caldors, Inc.

In effect, plaintiffs failed to establish that Caldor exercised any possessory or controlling interest in the…

In re Forster

The party opposing summary judgment for such reason must "put forth some evidentiary basis to suggest that…