Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower LLC

83 A.D.3d 1563, 921 N.Y.S.2d 601

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 2011·No. CA 10-01745·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered May 20, 2010. The order granted the motions of defendants The Pike Company, Inc., The Hayner Hoyt Corporation and Syracuse Merit Electric, a Division of O’Connell Electric Co., Inc., for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v GML Tower LLC, 28 Misc 3d 475 [2010]). We add only that we do not address plaintiffs contention that the 2007 Loan Agreement was a preliminary agreement that expired before the mortgage at issue was filed. That contention is raised for the first time on appeal and “ ‘could have been obviated or cured by factual showings or legal countersteps’ ” in Supreme Court (Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839, 840 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Sconiers and Green, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered May 20, 2010. The order granted the motions of defendants The Pike Company, Inc., The Hayner Hoyt Corporation and Syracuse Merit Electric, a Division of O’Connell Electric Co., Inc., for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v GML Tower LLC, 28 Misc 3d 475 [2010]). We add only that we do not address plaintiffs contention that the 2007 Loan Agreement was a preliminary agreement that expired before the mortgage at issue was filed. That contention is raised for the first time on appeal and “ ‘could have been obviated or cured by factual showings or legal countersteps’ ” in Supreme Court (Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839, 840 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Sconiers and Green, JJ.

Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower LLC, 83 A.D.3d 1563, 921 N.Y.S.2d 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

83 A.D.3d 1563 (Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related