Opinion
Submitted April 24, 2001.
September 10, 2001.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Honeywell, Inc., and Johnson Controls, Inc., separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 12, 1999, as granted the plaintiffs' motion for class action certification pursuant to CPLR article 9 and denied those branches of their separate cross motions which were, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action insofar as asserted against them.
Robert E. DeRight, Jr., New York, N.Y., for appellant Honeywell, Inc.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita Contini, LLP, Garden City, N Y
(Mercedes Colwin of counsel), for appellant Johnson Controls, Inc.
Virginia Ambinder, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Charles R. Virginia of counsel), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P. GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for class action certification for past or present employees of the defendant J.P. Jack Corporation who performed electrical or other construction work on certain public works projects (see, CPLR 901[a]; Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83).
The branches of the appellants' separate cross motions which were, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action insofar as asserted against them were properly denied. The record was not ripe for reaching a summary determination as to the fourth cause of action, since discovery remains outstanding (see, Sobers v. Lopresti, A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 29, 2001]; Lantigua v. Mallick, 263 A.D.2d 467; Grotto Assocs. v. Lax, 174 A.D.2d 394, 395).