Nathanson v. Tri-State Construction LLC
Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 01815,853 N.Y.S.2d 299,48 A.D.3d 373 |
Decision Date | 28 February 2008 |
Docket Number | 2875N. |
Parties | ASA NATHANSON, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION LLC et al., Defendants, and VAIJ ASSOCIATES LLC, Proposed Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Nathanson failed to demonstrate merit to the proposed amendment (Helene-Harrisson Corp. v Moneyline Networks, 6 AD3d 151 [2004]). In light of our recent affirmance of the dismissal of the case with which Nathanson sought consolidation (see Tri State Constr., LLC v Vaij Realty Assoc., 45 AD3d 328 [2007]), the contentions regarding this issue have been rendered academic. Were we to reach the issue, we would find that none of the elements required for imposition of a constructive trust have been established (see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119 [1976]).
McGuire, J., concurs in a separate memorandum as follows:
The denial of that aspect of plaintiff's motion for a constructive trust on Vaij Associates (Vaij) has been rendered academic by our determination that plaintiff failed to demonstrate merit to that aspect of the motion seeking to amend the complaint to add Vaij as a defendant. Without a valid complaint against Vaij or anyone else, plaintiff's motion for a constructive trust on Vaij obviously has been rendered academic. Accordingly, this Court should not unnecessarily express an opinion on the merits of that aspect of the motion for a constructive trust (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714 [1980] [ ]). The contrary-to-fact construction with which the majority prefaces its "contingent observation" about the merits of that motion (Bell v Miller, 500 F3d 149, 155 [2d Cir 2007]) serves only to underscore the unnecessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Charles v. Suvannavejh
...claims' merit. Hoppe v. Board of Directors of 51-78 Owners Corp., 49 A.D.3d 477, 854 N.Y.S.2d 689; Nathanson v. Tri-State Constr. LLC, 48 A.D.3d 373, 374, 853 N.Y.S.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2008); Robinson v. Canniff, 22 A.D.3d 219, 220, 801 N.Y.S.2d 597 (1st Dep't 2005); Zaid Theatre Corp. v. Son......
-
Altschuler v. Jobman 478/480, LLC.
...has been rendered moot by DHCR's subsequent submission of the requested documents to plaintiff (see Nathanson v. Tri–State Constr. LLC, 48 A.D.3d 373, 374, 853 N.Y.S.2d 299 [1st Dept.2008] ).22 N.Y.S.3d 430We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them...
-
Sinchi v. Aloia
... ... MARIO ALOIA et al., Defendants, and ... JORGE PEREIRA CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent ... Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First ... ...