Medina v. R.M. Resources

• Citation: 107 A.D.3d 859,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04582,968 N.Y.S.2d 533
• Parties: Stephen MEDINA, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. R.M. RESOURCES, et al., appellants, Ingersoll–Rand Company, defendant-respondent (and a third-party action). (Appeal No. 1). Stephen Medina, et al., appellants, v. R.M. Resources, et al., defendants, Ingersoll–Rand Company, respondent (and a third-party action). (Appeal No. 2).
• Decision Date: 19 June 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 859
968 N.Y.S.2d 533
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04582

Stephen MEDINA, et al., plaintiffs-respondents,
v.
R.M. RESOURCES, et al., appellants,
Ingersoll–Rand Company, defendant-respondent
(and a third-party action). (Appeal No. 1).
Stephen Medina, et al., appellants,
v.
R.M. Resources, et al., defendants,
Ingersoll–Rand Company, respondent
(and a third-party action). (Appeal No. 2).

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

June 19, 2013.

[968 N.Y.S.2d 534]

Gallagher, Walker, Bianco & Plastaras, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael R. Walker of counsel), for appellants in Appeal No. 1.

Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Alan G. Faber of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents in Appeal No. 1 and appellants in Appeal No. 2.

Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joshua H. Abramson and Kenneth R. Meyer of counsel), for defendant-respondent in Appeal No. 1 and respondent in Appeal No. 2.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

[107 A.D.3d 859]In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants R.M. Resources, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Ruland–110 Associates, L.P., MS Venture Corp., Better Ruland Road Associates, L.P., and Best Ruland, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated October 17, 2011, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and granted the motion of the defendant Ingersoll–Rand Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the plaintiffs separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as granted the motion of the defendant Ingersoll–Rand Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the appeal by the defendants R.M. Resources, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Ruland–110 Associates, L.P., MS Venture Corp., Better Ruland Road Associates, L.P., and Best Ruland, Inc., from so much of the order as granted the motion of the defendant Ingersoll–Rand Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant is dismissed, as they are not aggrieved by that portion of the order ( seeCPLR 5511; Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 144, 156–157, 904 N.Y.S.2d 132); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiffs and insofar as reviewed on the appeal by the defendants R.M. Resources, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Ruland–110 Associates, L.P., MS Venture Corp., Better Ruland

[968 N.Y.S.2d 535]

Road Associates, L.P., and Best Ruland, Inc.; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Ingersoll–Rand Company, payable by...