From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lamarca v. Super Structure Builders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 26, 2006
35 A.D.3d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2006-03423.

December 26, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated February 22, 2006, as denied that branch of her motion which was to sever this action insofar as asserted against the defendant Super Structure Builders, Inc., and to permit the plaintiff to proceed against the defendant 31 W 21, LLC.

Grey Grey, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Sherman B. Kerner of counsel), for appellant.

McCabe, Collins, McGeough Fowler, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Patrick M. Murphy of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Covello, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to sever this action insofar as asserted against the defendant Super Structure Builders, Inc., and to permit the plaintiff to proceed against the defendant 31 W 21, LLC ( see CPLR 603; Naylor v Knoll Farms of Suffolk County, Inc., 31 AD3d 726, 727; Ingoglia v Leshaj, 1 AD3d 482, 485).


Summaries of

Lamarca v. Super Structure Builders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 26, 2006
35 A.D.3d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Lamarca v. Super Structure Builders, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CALOGERO LAMARCA, Appellant, v. SUPER STRUCTURE BUILDERS, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 26, 2006

Citations

35 A.D.3d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 10030
825 N.Y.S.2d 371

Citing Cases

Porter v. Annabi

To the extent that Keybank raises issues concerning that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment…