Brown v Krueger
2004 NYSlipOp 09926
December 30, 2004
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 23, 2005


Michael R. Brown et al., Respondents, v Donald D. Krueger, Jr., et al., Defendants, and Deargate Homes Limited et al., Appellants.

[*1]Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered October 7, 2003. The order denied without prejudice the motion of defendants Deargate Homes Limited and Frank Mauro for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against defendant Frank Mauro.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied without prejudice the motion of Deargate Homes Limited and Frank Mauro (defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against Mauro. Where, as here, "the facts essential to opposing defendant[s'] motion may exist but cannot be stated without conducting discovery of employees of defendants and others, the court should . . . den[y] the motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f)" (Perotto Dev. Corp. v Sear-Brown Group, 269 AD2d 749, 749 [2000]; see Borland v Sampson Steel Fabricators, 298 AD2d 831, 833 [2002]; Sumell v Wegmans Food Mkts., 254 AD2d 702 [1998]). Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Martoche and Smith, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.