G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…it appears . . . that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot . . . be stated
at p. 557
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cardenas v. New York City Hous. Auth.
(2×)
In any event, as Crew notes and plaintiff does not dispute, plaintiff never tried to obtain any discovery from Crew ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007] [citations omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Unitrin Safeguard Ins. Co. v. Manuel
(2×)
Although defendant providers argue that plaintiff's summary judgment motion was premature, they failed to demonstrate that any proof necessary for their opposition was exclusively within plaintiff's possession or that they made further attempts to obtain that information ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; see also CPLR 3212[f]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Buenano v. City of New York
The court improperly found defendants' motion to be premature under CPLR 3212(f), as plaintiff failed to demonstrate that further discovery was required to avoid summary judgment ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Juman v. Cape Church Assoc., LLC
(2×)
Plaintiff and Inter [*2]Connection offered nothing beyond "mere hope or conjecture" that further discovery from 30 Warren might reveal that it had some role with the property ( Guzman-Saquisili , 231 AD3d at 685), and they have made no showing that they tried to discover facts at variance with 30 Warren's proof ( compare Rivera v Matiz Architecture, PLLC , 217 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2023] with Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holness v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC
In these circumstances, granting summary judgment to Metropolis would be premature under CPLR 3212 (f). ( See Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkins & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007] [describing standard for denying summary judgment as premature].) Accordingly, this branch of Metropolis's motion is denied without prejudice as premature. [FN20] Motion Sequence 007 Plaintiffs' Motion to Sever or Dismiss the Fifth Third-Party Complaint In motion sequence 007, plaintiffs move under CPLR 603 to sever the fifth third-party complaint filed by J&Z or, in the alternative, under C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman-Saquisili v. Harlem Urban Dev. Corp.
Defendants did not establish that plaintiff's summary judgment motion was premature, as they failed to show that they needed proof that was within the exclusive knowledge of plaintiff, that their claims in opposition are supported by something other than mere hope or conjecture, and that they attempted to discover facts at variance with plaintiff's proof ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; CPLR 3212 [f]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morand v. Coachman Luxury Transp., Inc.
Moreover, the motion for summary judgment was not premature ( Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Flores v City of New York , 66 AD3d 599 , 600 [1st Dept 2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cafisi v. L&L Holding Co., LLC
Finally, plaintiff's motion was not premature as defendants failed to show what discovery was needed and what any additional discovery could be expected to reveal ( see CPLR 3212 [f]; Cruz v City of New York, 135 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2016]; Miller v Icon Group LLC , 77 AD3d 586, 588 [1st Dept 2010]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cafisi v. L&L Holding Co., LLC
Finally, plaintiff's motion was not premature as defendants failed to show what discovery was needed and what any additional discovery could be expected to reveal ( see CPLR 3212 [f]; Cruz v City of New York, 135 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2016]; Miller v Icon Group LLC , 77 AD3d 586, 588 [1st Dept 2010]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Matiz Architecture, PLLC
Since 3 RSD had not yet produced that managing member for deposition at the time that it moved for summary judgment, plaintiff established "that facts essential to justify opposition" might exist but could not "then be stated" (CPLR 3212[f]) because they were "within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party" ( Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Matiz Architecture, PLLC
Since 3 RSD had not yet produced that managing member for deposition at the time that it moved for summary judgment, plaintiff established "that facts essential to justify opposition" might exist but could not "then be stated" (CPLR 3212[f]) because they were "within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party" ( Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
RSR Corp. v. Leg Q LLC
Although Meyers argued that Leg Q's motion was premature, he did not point to any specific discovery within Leg Q's exclusive control that would yield material and relevant evidence ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Miller v Icon Group LLC , 77 AD3d 586, 588 [1st Dept 2010]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sotelo v. TRM Contr., LP
Defendants failed to demonstrate that facts essential to justify opposition to plaintiff's motion were within the exclusive knowledge of plaintiff, the moving party ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sotelo v. TRM Contr., LP
Defendants failed to demonstrate that facts essential to justify opposition to plaintiff's motion were within the exclusive knowledge of plaintiff, the moving party ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bailey v. Gabrielli Truck Leasing LLC
Defendants fail to show that plaintiff's motion should have been denied as premature ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Walsam 316, LLC v 316 Bowery Realty Corp. , 190 AD3d 626 , 627 [1st Dept 2021]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greca v. Choice Assoc. LLC
Choice failed to establish that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were within plaintiffs' exclusive knowledge ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greca v. Choice Assoc. LLC
Choice failed to establish that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were within plaintiffs' exclusive knowledge ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rios v. City of New York
Plaintiff fails to offer anything other than conjecture to support this position ( see Voluto Ventures, Inc v Jenkins & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; Global Mins. and Metals Corp. v Holme , 35 AD3d 93, 103 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rios v. City of New York
Plaintiff fails to offer anything other than conjecture to support this position ( see Voluto Ventures, Inc v Jenkins & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; Global Mins. and Metals Corp. v Holme , 35 AD3d 93, 103 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corona v. HHSC 13th St. Dev. Corp.
Defendants' motion is premature with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, since "it appear[s] . . . that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot . . . be stated" (CPLR 3212[f]) because they lie within defendants' exclusive knowledge ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; Lyons v New York City Economic Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corona v. HHSC 13th St. Dev. Corp.
Defendants' motion is premature with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, since "it appear[s] . . . that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot . . . be stated" (CPLR 3212[f]) because they lie within defendants' exclusive knowledge ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; Lyons v New York City Economic Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corona v. HHSC 13th St. Dev. Corp.
Defendants' motion is premature with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, since "it appear[s] . . . that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot . . . be stated" (CPLR 3212[f]) because they lie within defendants' exclusive knowledge ( see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]; Lyons v New York City Economic Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chern v. Leclerc
Plaintiff also failed to show that facts essential to justify their opposition to defendants' motion might exist but could not be stated without further discovery and that therefore the motion should be denied as premature ( see CPLR 3212[f]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. City of New York
Accordingly, the court should have denied the City's motion as premature and granted plaintiff's request for further discovery regarding the belated disclosure ( see generally CPLR 3212[f]; Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC
Defendant's argument that plaintiff's motion is premature is improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Copp v Ramirez , 62 AD3d 23, 31 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]), and, in any event, defendant cannot show that facts essential to oppose the motion were exclusively within plaintiff's knowledge and control (CPLR 3212[f]; see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC
Defendant's argument that plaintiff's motion is premature is improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Copp v Ramirez , 62 AD3d 23, 31 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]), and, in any event, defendant cannot show that facts essential to oppose the motion were exclusively within plaintiff's knowledge and control (CPLR 3212[f]; see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP , 44 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Voluto Ventures, LLC
v.
Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP
v.
Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 25, 2007.
Cited by 48 opinions | Published
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered June 5, 2007, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $200,000, pursuant to a revised order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 21, 2007, which granted plaintiff summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 1 and 27, 2007, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
Defendant failed to contradict, through admissible evidence, the basic contention that it did not have the authority to send the money held in its escrow account on plaintiffs behalf to any entity other than plaintiff. We are not persuaded by defendant’s argument that its lack of discovery requires denial of the motion as premature. To avail oneself of CPLR 3212 (f) to defeat or delay summary judgment, a party must demonstrate that the needed proof is within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party (Berkeley Fed. Bank & Trust v 229 E. 53rd St. Assoc., 242 AD2d 489 [1997]), that the claims in opposition are supported by something other than mere hope or conjecture (Neryaev v Solon, 6 AD3d 510 [2004]), and that the party has at least made some attempt to discover facts at variance with the moving party’s proof (see Cruz v Otis El. Co., 238 AD2d 540 [1997]). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that necessary diligence.
We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31116(U).]