Jana L. v. West 129th Street Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jana L. v. West 129th Street Realty Co.

32 A.D.3d 260, 820 N.Y.S.2d 230

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

DecidedAugust 10, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 260 (Jana L. v. West 129th Street Realty Co.) 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

Jana L. v. West 129th Street Realty Co., 32 A.D.3d 260, 820 N.Y.S.2d 230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2005, which denied [261]*261plaintiffs motion to require that defendant West 129th Street Realty Co. and its indemnitor, 408-412 West 129th Street Associates, be jointly represented at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the circumstances of this personal injury arising from an assault by an intruder in an apartment building, where the sale of the building closed 90 minutes later and plaintiff sued, among others, both the seller and the purchaser, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting both entities to continue to be represented by separate counsel of their choice at trial despite both the dismissal of the complaint against the purchaser on its motion for summary judgment and this Court’s prior ruling (22 AD3d 274 [2005]) granting the seller summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification against the purchaser, which determination is still subject to possible further review upon entry of a final judgment after trial. Indeed, if the trial court had granted plaintiffs motion, to which the seller did not object, the purchaser effectively would have been deprived of its right to conflict-free counsel of its choice (cf. Chemprene, Inc. v X-Tyal Intl. Corp., 55 NY2d 900 [1982], modfg, on partial dissent of Lazer, J., 78 AD2d 668 [1980]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams, McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2005, which denied [261]*261plaintiffs motion to require that defendant West 129th Street Realty Co. and its indemnitor, 408-412 West 129th Street Associates, be jointly represented at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the circumstances of this personal injury arising from an assault by an intruder in an apartment building, where the sale of the building closed 90 minutes later and plaintiff sued, among others, both the seller and the purchaser, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting both entities to continue to be represented by separate counsel of their choice at trial despite both the dismissal of the complaint against the purchaser on its motion for summary judgment and this Court’s prior ruling (22 AD3d 274 [2005]) granting the seller summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification against the purchaser, which determination is still subject to possible further review upon entry of a final judgment after trial. Indeed, if the trial court had granted plaintiffs motion, to which the seller did not object, the purchaser effectively would have been deprived of its right to conflict-free counsel of its choice (cf. Chemprene, Inc. v X-Tyal Intl. Corp., 55 NY2d 900 [1982], modfg, on partial dissent of Lazer, J., 78 AD2d 668 [1980]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams, McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 260, 820 N.Y.S.2d 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jana-l-v-west-129th-street-realty-co-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack