Opinion
64 CA 20-00763
02-04-2022
SCHLOSS & SCHLOSS, AIRMONT (JONATHAN B. SCHLOSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. LAZARUS & LAZARUS, P.C., NEW YORK CITY (YVETTE J. SUTTON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
SCHLOSS & SCHLOSS, AIRMONT (JONATHAN B. SCHLOSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
LAZARUS & LAZARUS, P.C., NEW YORK CITY (YVETTE J. SUTTON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of the motion with respect to the fourth cause of action and reinstating that cause of action, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this dispute arising from operation and purchase agreements involving an adult care facility, defendants-third-party plaintiffs Comprehensive at Lancaster, LLC, doing business as Symphony Manor at Lancaster, and Broadway Lancaster Realty, LLC (collectively, Comprehensive plaintiffs) appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted in part the motion of third-party defendants-respondents to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Preliminarily, although plaintiffs-third-party defendants Lancaster Manor LLC and Lancaster Manor Realty, LLC filed a notice of cross appeal, they do not raise any contentions related thereto, and we therefore deem the cross appeal abandoned and dismissed (see 22 NYCRR 1250.10 [a]; Brown v. State of New York [appeal No. 2], 144 A.D.3d 1535, 1537, 41 N.Y.S.3d 628 [4th Dept. 2016], affd 31 N.Y.3d 514, 80 N.Y.S.3d 665, 105 N.E.3d 1246 [2018] ). As the Comprehensive plaintiffs contend on their appeal and third-party defendants-respondents correctly concede, Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the motion seeking to dismiss the fourth cause of action for attorneys’ fees (see generally Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v. Superior Well Servs., Inc. , 20 N.Y.3d 59, 63, 956 N.Y.S.2d 439, 980 N.E.2d 487 [2012] ; Hooper Assoc. v. AGS Computers, Inc. , 74 N.Y.2d 487, 491, 549 N.Y.S.2d 365, 548 N.E.2d 903 [1989] ). We therefore modify the order accordingly. We have considered the Comprehensive plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or further modification of the order.