Hernandez v. Gateway Demolition Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Gateway Demolition Corp.

263 A.D.2d 467, 691 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7872

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 467 (Hernandez v. Gateway Demolition Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hernandez v. Gateway Demolition Corp., 263 A.D.2d 467, 691 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for underpayment of prevailing wages, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated April 6, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint and denied their cross motion to certify the action as a class action.

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

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint and denying the plaintiffs’ cross motion to certify the action as a class action since the plaintiffs moved one year and three months after the time within which to move to certify a class had expired (see, CPLR 902; see generally, O’Hara v Del Bello, 47 NY2d 363). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for underpayment of prevailing wages, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated April 6, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint and denied their cross motion to certify the action as a class action.

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

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint and denying the plaintiffs’ cross motion to certify the action as a class action since the plaintiffs moved one year and three months after the time within which to move to certify a class had expired (see, CPLR 902; see generally, O’Hara v Del Bello, 47 NY2d 363). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 467, 691 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-gateway-demolition-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack