From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nielsen v. New York State Dormitory Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 2011
84 A.D.3d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

Nos. 5044N, 5045N, 5046N.

May 10, 2011.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 25, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant New York State Dormitory Authority's motion to vacate plaintiffs' note of issue and denied the motions of plaintiffs and fourth-party defendant to sever the fourth-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellants.

Brill Associates, P.C., New York (Corey M. Reichardt of counsel), for New York State Dormitory Authority, respondent.

Malapero Prisco, LLP, New York (Mark A. Bethmann of counsel), for McKissack Turner Construction/JV, respondent.

Law Offices of Michael Pressman, New York (Howard Greenwald of counsel), for Metropolitan Steel Industries, INC. and Midlantic Erectors, Inc., respondents.

Before: Concur — Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.


The denial of plaintiffs' motion to sever the fourth-party action was a provident exercise of discretion, notwithstanding any delay in commencing the action ( see CPLR 1010; see also Escourse v. City of New York, 27 AD3d 319). The main action will not be delayed to the prejudice of plaintiffs, the fourth-party defendant's discovery rights can be accommodated, and common questions of fact are present ( see Erbach Fin. Corp. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 203 AD2d 80).

Plaintiffs never appealed from the order, same court and Justice, entered August 23, 2010, which, among other things, denied plaintiffs' cross motion to sever the third-party action. In any event, for the same reasons given with respect to the motion to sever the fourth-party action, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the cross motion.

The court also providently exercised its discretion in granting the Dormitory Authority's motion to vacate plaintiffs' note of issue. A note of issue should be vacated where, as here, it is based upon a certificate of readiness that incorrectly states that all discovery has been completed ( see Ortiz v Arias, 285 AD2d 390, 390; Savino v. Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176, 177-178).


Summaries of

Nielsen v. New York State Dormitory Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 2011
84 A.D.3d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Nielsen v. New York State Dormitory Auth

Case Details

Full title:SEAN NIELSEN et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE DORMITORY AUTHORITY et…

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

Date published: May 10, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3918
923 N.Y.S.2d 66

Citing Cases

Marbilla, LLC v. 143/145 Lexington LLC

The relevant considerations for the court are whether : (1) the third-party action is based on the same…

143/145 Lexington Ave., LLC v. M&R European Constr. Corp.

The relevant considerations for the court are whether: (1) the third-party action is based on the same issues…