Bernstein v.

• Decision Date: 30 August 2017
• Docket Number: 2016-07183. Index No. 14577/14.
• Citation: 153 A.D.3d 897,61 N.Y.S.3d 113
• Parties: Shoshana BERNSTEIN, plaintiff-respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., defendants, Global Galaktika Corp., et al., defendants-respondents, Henry Frias, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

153 A.D.3d 897

61 N.Y.S.3d 113

Shoshana BERNSTEIN, plaintiff-respondent,

v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., defendants,Global Galaktika Corp., et al., defendants-respondents,Henry Frias, appellant.

2016-07183. Index No. 14577/14.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 30, 2017.

Russo & Tambasco (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, NY [Donald S. Neumann, Jr. ], of counsel), for appellant.

Burns & Harris, New York, NY (Judith F. Stempler of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Nancy L. Isserlis (Saretsky Katz & Dranoff, LLP, New York, NY [Daniel P. Rifkin], of counsel), for defendants-respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Henry Frias appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated May 6, 2016, as denied, as premature, his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On May 21, 2014, the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle owned by the defendant Global Galaktika Corp. (hereinafter Global) and operated by the defendant Sardor B. Djalolov when, at the intersection of New Lots Avenue and Alabama Avenue in Brooklyn, it was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Henry Frias. In October 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, Djalolov, Global, and Frias. After issue was joined, but before any depositions were held, Frias moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court denied the motion as premature, in effect, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

"A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing prima facie that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident" ( Boulos v. Lerner–Harrington, 124 A.D.3d 709, 709, 2 N.Y.S.3d 526 ). "A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment" ( Brea v. Salvatore, 130 A.D.3d 956, 956, 13 N.Y.S.3d 839 ; see CPLR 3212[f] ; Amico v. Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 784, 785, 832 N.Y.S.2d 813 ).

Here, Frias moved for summary judgment before the parties had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery (see Richardson v. New York City Tr. Auth....