Opinion
1147 CA 15-00220
04-29-2016
BRIAN LIPPENS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WINKLER BACKEREITECHNIK GMBH, WERNER & PFLEIDERER INDUSTRIELLE BACKTECHNIK GMBH, BAKERY ENGINEERING/WINKLER, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, WINKLER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
LECLAIR RYAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, NEW YORK CITY (LESLIE F. RUFF OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS WINKLER BACKEREITECHNIK GMBH AND WERNER & PFLEIDERER INDUSTRIELLE BACKTECHNIK GMBH. OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, ROCHESTER (JEFFREY P. DIPALMA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BAKERY ENGINEERING/WINKLER, INC. MACCARTNEY, MACCARTNEY, KERRIGAN & MACCARTNEY, NYACK (WILLIAM K. KERRIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT:
LECLAIR RYAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, NEW YORK CITY (LESLIE F. RUFF OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS WINKLER BACKEREITECHNIK GMBH AND WERNER & PFLEIDERER INDUSTRIELLE BACKTECHNIK GMBH.
OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, ROCHESTER (JEFFREY P. DIPALMA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BAKERY ENGINEERING/WINKLER, INC.
MACCARTNEY, MACCARTNEY, KERRIGAN & MACCARTNEY, NYACK (WILLIAM K. KERRIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (J. Scott Odorisi, J.), entered June 16, 2014 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied in part the motions of defendants Bakery Engineering/Winkler, Inc., Winkler Backereitechnik GmbH and Werner & Pfleiderer Industrielle Backtechnik GmbH seeking summary judgment and granted the cross motion of plaintiff for leave to serve an amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs as moot (see Sutton Investing Corp. v City of Syracuse, 12 AD3d 1201).
Entered: April 29, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court