Nassau County v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nassau County v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

109 A.D.3d 460, 970 N.Y.S.2d 701

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

DecidedAugust 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 460 (Nassau County v. New York State Urban Development 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

Nassau County v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 109 A.D.3d 460, 970 N.Y.S.2d 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant/second third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered May 31, 2011, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the third-party defendants/second third-party defendants Roy Kay, Inc., and Keyspan Corporation, Anron Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., and Stonewall Contracting Corp. which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second third-party complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the respective motions of the third-party defendants/second third-party defendants Roy Kay, Inc., and Keyspan Corporation, Anron Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., and Stonewall Contracting Corp. which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second third-party complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The second third-party complaint, insofar as asserted against each of them, failed to state a cause of action sounding in either breach of contract (see Pile Found. Constr. Co. v Berger, Lehman Assoc., 253 AD2d 484, 486 [1998]; see also Van-Tulco, Inc. v Long Is. Light. Co., 214 AD2d 725, 726 [1995]) or contribution or indemnification (see Galvin Bros., Inc. v Town of Babylon, N.Y., 91 AD3d 715 [2012]). The cause of action alleging negligent misrepresentation, insofar as asserted against each of them, was time-barred (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; Fandy Corp. v Lung-Fong Chen, 262 AD2d 352, 352-353 [1999]) and failed to state a cause of action (see Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884, 885 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Miller and Hinds-Radix, 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 breach of contract, the defendant/second third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered May 31, 2011, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the third-party defendants/second third-party defendants Roy Kay, Inc., and Keyspan Corporation, Anron Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., and Stonewall Contracting Corp. which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second third-party complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the respective motions of the third-party defendants/second third-party defendants Roy Kay, Inc., and Keyspan Corporation, Anron Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., and Stonewall Contracting Corp. which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second third-party complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The second third-party complaint, insofar as asserted against each of them, failed to state a cause of action sounding in either breach of contract (see Pile Found. Constr. Co. v Berger, Lehman Assoc., 253 AD2d 484, 486 [1998]; see also Van-Tulco, Inc. v Long Is. Light. Co., 214 AD2d 725, 726 [1995]) or contribution or indemnification (see Galvin Bros., Inc. v Town of Babylon, N.Y., 91 AD3d 715 [2012]). The cause of action alleging negligent misrepresentation, insofar as asserted against each of them, was time-barred (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; Fandy Corp. v Lung-Fong Chen, 262 AD2d 352, 352-353 [1999]) and failed to state a cause of action (see Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884, 885 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 460, 970 N.Y.S.2d 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nassau-county-v-new-york-state-urban-development-corp-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack