| James v Aircraft Serv. Intl. Group |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04206 [84 AD3d 1026] |
| May 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Christopher James, Respondent, v Aircraft ServiceInternational Group, Appellant, and Command Security Corp., Doing Business as AviationSafeguards, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Douglas & London, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Nicholas E. Warywoda of counsel), forrespondent. Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull, P.C. (Richard Imbrogno of counsel), for defendant CommandSecurity Corp., doing business as Aviation Safeguards.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Aircraft ServiceInternational Group appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Grays, J.), entered April 29, 2010, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against it without prejudice to renew after the completion ofdiscovery.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In April 2006, after performing cleaning services inside an airplane at JFK InternationalAirport (hereinafter JFK), the plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell from thedoorway of the stationary airplane. The plaintiff alleged that the incident occurred when thecargo carrier/truck that had been lifted to the side of the airplane for him to disembark moved,causing him to fall to the ground below. The plaintiff claimed that this cargo carrier/truck wasoperated by an employee of the defendant Aircraft Service International Group (hereinafter theappellant) and displayed the appellant's decal.
Prior to any discovery being conducted, the appellant moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied themotion without prejudice to renew after the completion of discovery. We affirm the order insofaras appealed from.
"A party opposing summary judgment is entitled to obtain further discovery when it appearsthat facts supporting the opposing party's position may exist but cannot then be stated" (Matter of Fasciglione, 73 AD3d769, 770 [2010]; see CPLR 3212 [f]; Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. [*2]Network, 74 AD3d 738, 739 [2010]; Juseinoski v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. ofQueens, 29 AD3d 636, 637 [2006]). "This is especially so where the opposing party hasnot had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the motion" (Baron vIncorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792, 793 [1988]; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina& Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578 [2009]). Here, the appellant moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it prior to the exchange of any discovery.Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it without prejudiceto renewal after the completion of discovery.
The parties' remaining arguments either are without merit or need not be reached in light ofour determination. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.