Case Name: Isaac Takhalov, Respondent, v. Eli Rottenberg et al., Respondents, and Congregation Ezras Yisroel et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-05-06
Citations: 128 A.D.3d 678
Docket Number: 
Parties: Isaac Takhalov, Respondent, v Eli Rottenberg et al., Respondents, and Congregation Ezras Yisroel et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
Isaac Takhalov, Respondent, v Eli Rottenberg et al., Respondents, and Congregation Ezras Yisroel et al., Appellants.
[6 NYS3d 499]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Congregation Ezras Yisroel and Yosef M. Fishman appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated July 30, 2014, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, with leave to renew after the completion of discovery.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiff and the defendants Eli Rottenberg and Robert Khaimov, appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
On June 9, 2013, the plaintiff allegedly was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle owned by the defendant Eli Rottenberg and operated by the defendant Robert Khaimov, when that vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle owned by the defendant Congregation Ezras Yisroel and operated by the defendant Yosef M. Fishman (hereinafter together the appellants) at or near the intersection of 12th Avenue and 44th Street in Brooklyn.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Their motion for summary judgment was premature, as little discovery had taken place and depositions of the parties had not yet occurred (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Molester v Rampil, 118 AD3d 855 [2014]).
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit (see Feitner v Town of Smithtown, 23 AD3d 431 [2005]) Rivera, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.