Gaetano Dev. Corp. v. Lee
| Decision Date | 15 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | 2012-11098, Index Nos. 25722/07, 54747/11. |
| Citation | 121 A.D.3d 838,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06940,994 N.Y.S.2d 641 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | GAETANO DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondent, v. Francis A. LEE, etc., et al., appellants. (Action No. 1) Gaetano Development Corp., respondent, v. Francis A. Lee, etc., et al., appellants. (Action No. 2). |
121 A.D.3d 838
994 N.Y.S.2d 641
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06940
GAETANO DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondent
v.
Francis A. LEE, etc., et al., appellants. (Action No. 1)
Gaetano Development Corp., respondent
v.
Francis A. Lee, etc., et al., appellants. (Action No. 2).
2012-11098, Index Nos. 25722/07, 54747/11.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 15, 2014.
Vincent J. Torna, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Michael A. Giannasca, White Plains, N.Y. (Nathan Shook of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Opinion
In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered October 3, 2012, which granted the plaintiff's motion in Action No. 1 to restore that action to the pre-note of issue calendar and join it for trial with Action No. 2, and denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 2.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) which were to dismiss the fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth causes of action of the complaint in Action No. 2, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to restore Action No. 1 to the pre-note of issue calendar (see Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 17, 19, 970 N.Y.S.2d 229 ), and join it for trial with Action No. 2.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the entire complaint in Action No. 2 on the ground that the mediation and arbitration provisions of the subject contract barred Action No. 2. The litigation conduct of Francis A. Lee and Francis A. Lee Company, A Corporation (hereinafter Lee Corporation) in Action No. 1 in answering the complaint, asserting five...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Litvinoff v. Wright
...recover damages for conversion must be granted, as the plaintiff did not oppose that branch of the motion (see Gaetano Dev. Corp. v. Lee, 121 A.D.3d 838, 840, 994 N.Y.S.2d 641 ; Paolicelli v. Fieldbridge Assoc., LLC, 120 A.D.3d 643, 647, 992 N.Y.S.2d 60 ; Aronov v. Shimonov, 105 A.D.3d 787,......
-
Bazeli v. Azaz
...the imposition of a constructive trust (see Seidenfeld v. Zaltz, 162 A.D.3d 929, 934–935, 80 N.Y.S.3d 311 ; Gaetano Dev. Corp. v. Lee, 121 A.D.3d 838, 839, 994 N.Y.S.2d 641 ). DILLON, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.,...
-
Robles v. Brooklyn-Queens Nursing Home, Inc.
...is not properly before this Court (see Koziar v. Grand Palace Rest., 125 A.D.3d 607, 607, 3 N.Y.S.3d 96 ; Gaetano Dev. Corp. v. Lee, 121 A.D.3d 838, 840, 994 N.Y.S.2d 641 ; Talamas v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 120 A.D.3d 1333, 1333, 993 N.Y.S.2d 102 ). The plaintiff did not have the oppor......