Baker v. 16 Sutton Place Apartment Corporation
Decision Date | 02 December 2003 |
Docket Number | 2088.,2088A. |
Parties | ALIXANDRA C. BAKER et al., Respondents, v. 16 SUTTON PLACE APARTMENT CORPORATION, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
While the amended complaint superseded the original complaint, and defendant's appeal of the partial denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the original complaint is therefore moot (see Hummingbird Assoc. v Dix Auto Serv., 273 AD2d 58 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 764 [2000]), the prior grant of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiffs' causes for gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress is preclusive of those claims to the extent they are reasserted in the amended pleading (see Reznick v Tanen, 162 AD2d 594 [1990]; Buckley & Co. v City of New York, 121 AD2d 933, 934-935 [1986]), and even insofar as the proposed amended causes for gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress are premised on new allegations, they should not have been permitted since they are plainly without merit (see Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc. v Kadem Capital Mgt., 306 AD2d 155 [2003]; Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assoc., 243 AD2d 107, 117 [1998]). In light of the absence of any factual allegations to support the inference that defendant intentionally performed an unreasonable act posing a specific known or obvious risk highly likely to result in harm to plaintiffs, and did so with conscious indifference as to the outcome, plaintiffs' amended cause for gross negligence is not viable (see Maltese v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 89 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1997]). Moreover, inasmuch as plaintiffs' claim for gross negligence arises from defendant's alleged failure to make repairs required by a proprietary lease, it is duplicative of and thus barred by their claim for breach of the lease (see Wapnick v Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 AD2d 245 [1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Charles v. Suvannavejh
...862 N.Y.S.2d 349; Cherebin v. Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 43 A.D.3d at 365, 841 N.Y.S.2d 277; Baker v. 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 119, 121, 768 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1st Dep't 2003); Bennett v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 51 A.D.3d 959, 960-61, 859 N.Y.S.2d 470 (2d Dep't 2008). Although......
-
Higgins v. 120 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place Condo.
... ... from August 23, 2019 requesting access to the apartment ... and stating that he had a call out to a ... November 16, 2017, Higgins went to the front desk of the ... fiduciary duty, because a corporation owes no fiduciary duty ... to its shareholders”); ... See Baker v. 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp. , 768 ... N.Y.S.2d 198, ... ...
-
Healthcare I.Q., LLC v. Chao
...omitted] ). Thus, defendant's appeal from the prior order denying summary judgment became moot ( see Baker v. 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 119, 120, 768 N.Y.S.2d 198 [1st Dept.2003] ), and “sufficient cause ... exist[ed]” for his motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended co......
-
Segal v. Cooper
...at issue is unavailing; the original complaint was superseded by the amended complaint ( see e.g. Baker v. 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 119, 768 N.Y.S.2d 198 [2003] ). LREA's conversion claim (third cause of action) should have been dismissed because LREA did not have a possessory r......