Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)

Citation: Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)
Parent Document: Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2022-06-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6620002/sapp-v-clark-wilson-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,021 chars

Even if such issues of fact did not exist, I submit that the owners' motion for summary judgment should have been denied as premature as there is relevant information exclusively within the owners' knowledge and control to which the plaintiffs are entitled to explore in discovery (see CPLR 3212[f]; Ticali v Locascio, 24 AD3d 430, 431; see e.g. Ruiz v Torres, 137 AD3d 1100, 1101). The plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to depose the owners or any witnesses from the defendants so that more details of the relationship between the We Care companies and the owners could be discovered, and relevant rent stabilization leases and documentation be provided. Remarkably, the appellate brief of the owners does not even respond to the plaintiffs' argument that summary judgment should have been denied as premature. Thus, irrespective of the merits, the judgment and those branches of the owners' motion at issue should be reversed on the ground that the motion was premature (see e.g. Ruiz v Torres, 137 AD3d at 1101).

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text