Garcia v. Bleeker St. Gardens, LLC
| Decision Date | 12 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2018–07182,Index No. 10134/14 |
| Parties | Celso GARCIA, appellant, v. BLEEKER STREET GARDENS, LLC, defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent; New Leaf Development, LLC, third-party defendant-respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
188 A.D.3d 830
132 N.Y.S.3d 327 (Mem)
Celso GARCIA, appellant,
v.
BLEEKER STREET GARDENS, LLC, defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent;
New Leaf Development, LLC, third-party defendant-respondent.
2018–07182
Index No. 10134/14
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued - June 24, 2020
November 12, 2020
Oresky & Associates, PLLC (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Paul H. Seidenstock ], of counsel), for appellant.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, Garden City, NY (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick and Robert F. McCarthy of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York, NY (William Parra of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Darrell L. Gavrin, J.), dated April 20, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for when his motion for summary judgment
was to be made returnable and denied, as untimely, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying, as untimely, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) ; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Jeanty
...made for the purpose of reaching an agreement to modify the terms of the parties' contract, and any promise to pay the remainder of the 188 A.D.3d 830 debt that could be inferred in such circumstances would merely be a promise conditioned upon the parties reaching a mutually satisfactory mo......
-
Fuczynski v. 144 Div., LLC
...issue of liability on the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) (see Garcia v. Bleeker St. Gardens, LLC, 188 A.D.3d 830, 831, 132 N.Y.S.3d 327 ; Mondesir v. Sterling, 149 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 53 N.Y.S.3d 140 ; He Ping Shao v. Cao Zhao Wei, 118 A.D.3d 943, 944,......
-
Spence v. Merrick Cent., LLC
...provision at issue in the subject lease (see Campisi v. Gambar Food Corp., 130 A.D.3d 854, 855–856, 13 N.Y.S.3d 567 ). Additionally, 132 N.Y.S.3d 327 contrary to Hair Definition's contention, the indemnification provision is not unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5–321.Wher......