NARDUCCI v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

2000-09026

Attorney(S)

Caulfield Law Office (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Marie Hodukavich] of counsel), for appellant. Julien Schlessinger, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mary Elizabeth Burns of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents. Leahey Johnson, New York, N.Y. (Peter James Johnson, Peter James Johnson, Jr., James P. Tenney, and Michael Dempsey of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Judges

Nancy E. Smith
Robert J. Miller

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

JOSEPHINE NARDUCCI, ETC., ET AL., plaintiffs-respondents, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, appellant, TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent, 450 LEXINGTON VENTURE L.P., ET AL., defendants-respondents; COMPONENT ASSEMBLY SYSTEM, INC., third-party defendant-respondent.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as purportedly denied that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the cross claim for common-law indemnification against the defendant Component Assembly System, Inc., is dismissed; 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.

The appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims asserted against it ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Sabato v. New York Life Ins. Co., 259 A.D.2d 535, 537).

The portion of the appeal which is from so much of the order as purportedly denied that branch of the appellant's motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against the defendant Component Assembly System, Inc., must be dismissed, as the Supreme Court failed to determine that branch of the motion, and it remains pending and undecided ( see Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536; see also Dembitzer v. Chera, 305 A.D.2d 531; Matter of Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Schofield, 283 A.D.2d 507).

SMITH, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Comments