Continental Custom Wood Finishing Corp. v. Chestnut Homes, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1998
• Citation: 248 A.D.2d 500,669 N.Y.S.2d 889
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2518 CONTINENTAL CUSTOM WOOD FINISHING CORP., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHESTNUT HOMES, INC., Appellant, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Defendants, Main Man, Watermain & Sewer Contractor, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 889

669 N.Y.S.2d 889

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2518

CONTINENTAL CUSTOM WOOD FINISHING CORP., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHESTNUT HOMES, INC., Appellant, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Defendants, Main Man, Watermain & Sewer Contractor, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 16, 1998.

John Z. Marangos, Staten Island, for appellant.

Stephen N. Erlitz, Brooklyn, for defendant-respondent.

Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York City (Francis F. Caputo, Joseph I. Lauer, and Dana H. Biberman, of counsel), for defendant New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from utilizing the plaintiff's cesspool, the defendant Chestnut Homes, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated October 11, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant Main Man, Watermain & Sewer Contractor, Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied its motion to reargue a prior motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the appeal of Chestnut Homes, Inc., from so much of the order as granted the motion of the defendant Main Man, Watermain & Sewer Contractor, Inc., is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal of Chestnut Homes, Inc., from so much of the order as denied its motion to reargue is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The appellant is not aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint against the defendant Main Man, Watermain & Sewer Contractor, Inc. (see, CPLR 5511; Andrew Keith Props. v. Hubinette Cowell Assocs., --- A.D.2d ----, 663 N.Y.S.2d 856; Dublin v. Prime, 168 A.D.2d 597, 563 N.Y.S.2d 674).

O'BRIEN, J.P., and THOMPSON, SULLIVAN and PIZZUTO, JJ., concur.