Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.

27 A.D.3d 308, 812 N.Y.S.2d 473

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 308 (Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.) 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

Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 308, 812 N.Y.S.2d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2004, which dismissed as academic third-party defendant Plaza’s motion to set aside certain parts of the jury’s verdict after a trial on damages only, and order, same court and Justice, entered September 22, 2005, which denied Plaza’s motion for leave to renew the June 9, 2004 order, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of costs.

The posttrial motion was properly dismissed because the case had been settled for the total sum of $10 million, Plaza’s insurance carrier had paid the full amount of its policy toward that settlement, and Plaza’s appeal sought an impermissible advisory opinion (see Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349, 354 [1988]). Examination of Plaza’s own arguments on appeal, which set forth numerous uncertainties and potential outcomes regarding the motion to set aside the verdict and the remaining third-party claims for contractual and common-law indemnification, indicates that Plaza seeks nothing more than an advisory opinion here (see Hammer v American Kennel Club, 304 AD2d 74, 82 [2003], affd 1 NY3d 294 [2003]).

The court correctly denied Plaza’s motion for renewal, which constituted yet another attempt to obtain an impermissible advisory opinion. Additionally, Plaza failed to offer any new facts that might have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).

We have considered Plaza’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2004, which dismissed as academic third-party defendant Plaza’s motion to set aside certain parts of the jury’s verdict after a trial on damages only, and order, same court and Justice, entered September 22, 2005, which denied Plaza’s motion for leave to renew the June 9, 2004 order, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of costs.

The posttrial motion was properly dismissed because the case had been settled for the total sum of $10 million, Plaza’s insurance carrier had paid the full amount of its policy toward that settlement, and Plaza’s appeal sought an impermissible advisory opinion (see Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349, 354 [1988]). Examination of Plaza’s own arguments on appeal, which set forth numerous uncertainties and potential outcomes regarding the motion to set aside the verdict and the remaining third-party claims for contractual and common-law indemnification, indicates that Plaza seeks nothing more than an advisory opinion here (see Hammer v American Kennel Club, 304 AD2d 74, 82 [2003], affd 1 NY3d 294 [2003]).

The court correctly denied Plaza’s motion for renewal, which constituted yet another attempt to obtain an impermissible advisory opinion. Additionally, Plaza failed to offer any new facts that might have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).

We have considered Plaza’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 308, 812 N.Y.S.2d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olszewski-v-park-terrace-gardens-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack