From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted April 21, 1999

June 1, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant PJR Construction Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 20, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Michael J. Caulfield, New York, N.Y. (Ronnie Robbins Kravatz of counsel), for appellant.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL W. JOY, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, NANCY E. SMITH. JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Since the record clearly indicates that the appellant was merely a limited partner and did not take part in the control of the business, it was not a proper party to this suit and should have been granted summary judgment ( see, Partnership Law §§ 115 Partnership, 96 Partnership; Board of Managers of Fairways at N. Hills Condominium v. Fairways at N. Hills, 150 A.D.2d 32, 39-40; Millard v. Newmark Co., 24 A.D.2d 333).


Summaries of

Martinez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Martinez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:EDUARDO MARTINEZ, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants, PJR…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 558

Citing Cases

Statement Servs. Corp. v. Lerock Constr.

"Where a party offers evidentiary proof on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and such proof is considered…

Hajar, Inc. v. One Peach Associates

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants I. Chera Sons,…