Mason v. City of N.Y.

Full title: Kenny Mason, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The City of New York, et al.…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 9, 2014

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 6874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

13144 102068/10 590356/10 590741/10

10-09-2014

Kenny Mason, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Enviro & Demo Masters, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. WGHA Harriet Tubman Apartments Housing Development Fund Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, Enviro & Demo Masters, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. [And A Second Third-Party Action]

McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Ross P. Masler and Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, New York (Joseph E. Gorczyca of counsel), for Kenny Mason, respondent. Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Van Etten, LLP, Melville (Elizabeth Gelfand Kastner of counsel), for The City of New York, The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, WGHA Harriet Tubman Apartments Housing Development Fund Corp., and SP Contractors of New York, Inc., respondents.

Tom, J.P.

, Friedman, Feinman, Gische, Kapnick, JJ.

McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Ross P. Masler and Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, New York (Joseph E. Gorczyca of counsel), for Kenny Mason, respondent.

Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Van Etten, LLP, Melville (Elizabeth Gelfand Kastner of counsel), for The City of New York, The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, WGHA Harriet Tubman Apartments Housing Development Fund Corp., and SP Contractors of New York, Inc., respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 9, 2013, which denied defendant/third-party defendant-appellant Enviro & Demo Masters, Inc.'s (Enviro) motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross claims asserted against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Enviro's motion for summary judgment is premature, given that the issues raised require further discovery, which has not yet been completed (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 506 [1993]; Blech v West Park Presbyt. Church, 97 AD3d 443, 443 [1st Dept 2012]). In any event, the submissions raise triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 9, 2014

CLERK