Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 2007-10061.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 00344,58 A.D.3d 682,871 N.Y.S.2d 669 |
| Docket Number | 2007-10061. |
| Parties | STEVE HUGER et al., Appellants, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and MELI BORRELLI ASSOCIATES et al., Respondents. NASTASI WHITE INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 20 January 2009 |
v.
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and MELI BORRELLI ASSOCIATES et al., Respondents.
NASTASI WHITE INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
[58 A.D.3d 683]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated September 20, 2007, as granted those branches of the cross motion of the third-party defendant which were to dismiss the complaint, the third-party complaint, and all cross claims pursuant to CPLR 3216.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted those branches of the cross motion which were to dismiss the third-party complaint and all cross claims is dismissed, as the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Initially, we note that the plaintiffs' appeal is limited by their notice of appeal to so much of the order as granted that branch of the cross motion of the third-party defendant which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. Given the limited scope of the plaintiffs' notice of appeal, their contentions concerning the Supreme Court's denial of their motion are not properly before this Court (see Uzzle v Nunzie Ct. Homeowners Assn., Inc., 55 AD3d 723 [2008]; City of Mount Vernon v Mount Vernon Hous. Auth., 235 AD2d 516 [1997]).
The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the third-party defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. CPLR 3216 (a) provides that the court may dismiss a party's pleading where the party unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue. Certain conditions precedent to dismissal must be met, including that one year has elapsed since joinder of issue, and that the court or the party seeking such relief has served a written demand for the serving and filing of the note of issue within 90 days (see CPLR 3216 [b]). In the event that the party on whom the demand is served fails to serve and file a note of issue within the prescribed time, the court may dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr.
...been met ( see Michaels v. Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 885 N.Y.S.2d 110; Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 683, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669). Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to serve and file a timely note of issue or move......
-
Paterno v. Carroll
...a result of their alleged failure to comply with discovery orders is not properly before this Court ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, 58 A.D.3d 682, 683, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669; Village of Croton-on-Hudson v. Northeast Interchange Ry., LLC, 46 A.D.3d 546, 548, 846 N.Y.S.2d 606; City of Mount Ve......
-
Griffith v. Wray
...to CPLR 3216. This order had the same effect as a valid 90–day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 684, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669;cf. Neary v. Tower Ins., 94 A.D.3d 723, 724, 941 N.Y.S.2d 277;Tolmasova v. Umarova, 90 A.D.3d 1028, 934 N.Y.S.2d 866;Ban......
-
Garcia v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hosp.
...not constitute a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff's failure to respond to the 90–day demands ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 684, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669;McKinney v. Corby, 295 A.D.2d 580, 744 N.Y.S.2d 882;Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552, 543 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr.
...been met ( see Michaels v. Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 885 N.Y.S.2d 110; Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 683, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669). Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to serve and file a timely note of issue or move......
-
Paterno v. Carroll
...a result of their alleged failure to comply with discovery orders is not properly before this Court ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, 58 A.D.3d 682, 683, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669; Village of Croton-on-Hudson v. Northeast Interchange Ry., LLC, 46 A.D.3d 546, 548, 846 N.Y.S.2d 606; City of Mount Ve......
-
Griffith v. Wray
...to CPLR 3216. This order had the same effect as a valid 90–day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 684, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669;cf. Neary v. Tower Ins., 94 A.D.3d 723, 724, 941 N.Y.S.2d 277;Tolmasova v. Umarova, 90 A.D.3d 1028, 934 N.Y.S.2d 866;Ban......
-
Garcia v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hosp.
...not constitute a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff's failure to respond to the 90–day demands ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 684, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669;McKinney v. Corby, 295 A.D.2d 580, 744 N.Y.S.2d 882;Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552, 543 N.Y.S.2d ......