On September 4, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Board of Mgrs. of the 443 Greenwich St. Condominium v. SGN 443 Greenwich St. Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33303(U), refusing to delay summary judgment because the defendant could not identify additional discovery needed, explaining:
Sponsor Defendants argue that summary judgment is premature because further discovery is needed to uncover whether LIF provided the doors at issue, or installed doors for the Project, citing Knowles v 21-43 27th St., LLC (224 AD3d 737, 737-38 [2d Dept 2024]). However, in Knowles, the non-movant provided the Court with specific individuals that needed to be deposed and documents to be reviewed, unlike in the present case, in which the Sponsor Defendants simply generally that more discovery is needed. A party contending that summary judgment is premature must demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant. The Sponsor Defendant’s speculation that more discovery might provide evidence to show a dispute of fact is insufficient to show that summary judgment is premature, particularly in light of documentary evidence indicating that LIF’s scope of work did not include the work or materials at issue. Moreover, given the privity that Sponsor Defendants have alleged between themselves and the Contractor, the Sponsor Defendants have not explained why such information is not already available to them.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).