From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crane-Hogan Structural Systems, Inc. v. ESLS Development, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2010
77 A.D.3d 1302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. CA 10-00527.

October 1, 2010.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered December 29, 2009. The judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff upon its motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

D'AGOSTINO, LEVINE, LANDESMAN LEDERMAN, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (BRUCE H. LEDERMAN OF COUNSEL), AND SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GATES ADAMS, P.C., ROCHESTER (RICHARD T. BELL, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

HARTER SECREST EMERY LLP, ROCHESTER (JESSICA M. PATRICK OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Carni, Lindley and Green, JJ.


Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action seeking, inter alia, payment for work that it performed on a parking garage owned by defendant/third-party plaintiff (defendant). Supreme Court, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action and denied defendant's cross motion to compel plaintiff to comply with discovery demands and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that it sought payment "in excess of the contract sum." The court subsequently granted defendant's motion for leave to reargue its opposition to plaintiffs motion and adhered to its prior determination, but it appears that no order was ever entered on that motion. However, a final monetary judgment was entered thereafter. Although defendant appeals from the court's initial order and judgment, we exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeal as taken from the final judgment ( see CPLR 5520 [c]; McLaughlin v Midrox Ins. Co. [appeal No. 2], 70 AD3d 1463, 1464-1465; Tambe Elec., Inc. v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 49 AD3d 1161). We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court underlying the initial order and judgment and for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court granting defendant's motion for leave to reargue.


Summaries of

Crane-Hogan Structural Systems, Inc. v. ESLS Development, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2010
77 A.D.3d 1302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Crane-Hogan Structural Systems, Inc. v. ESLS Development, LLC

Case Details

Full title:CRANE-HOGAN STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, v. ESLS DEVELOPMENT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 1, 2010

Citations

77 A.D.3d 1302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 6848
910 N.Y.S.2d 391

Citing Cases

Prince Lynch v. Mike Waters

The cross motion of plaintiff for permission for an extension of time to file her brief encompassed both the…

Lynch v. Waters

The cross motion of plaintiff for permission for an extension of time to file her brief encompassed both the…