In its motion for summary judgment, FKB successful argued, among other things, that the scope of FKB’s client’s plumbing work was limited to solely the interior of a building being constructed, and therefore could not have caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s alleged accident, which transpired while the plaintiff was performing excavation work on the exterior of the building. The court agreed and rejected the argument that FKB’s client’s summary judgment was premature because discovery had not yet been completed. In coming to that conclusion, the court found that FKB established, prima facie, that FKB’s client was not negligent in the happening of the plaintiff’s alleged accident. The court also found that the other parties, within their opposition, failed to show what evidence could be acquired by additional discovery that could establish a nexus between the work performed by FKB’s client and the plaintiff’s alleged accident. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims asserted against FKB’s client.