Ortiz v. J. P. Jack Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. J. P. Jack Corp.

286 A.D.2d 671, 729 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 671 (Ortiz v. J. P. Jack 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

Ortiz v. J. P. Jack Corp., 286 A.D.2d 671, 729 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Honeywell, Inc., and Johnson Controls, Inc., separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme‘Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 12, 1999, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification pursuant to CPLR article 9 and denied those branches of their separate cross motions which were, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action insofar as asserted against them.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification for past or present employees of the defendant J. P. Jack Corporation who performed electrical or other construction work on certain public works projects (see, CPLR 901 [a]; Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83).

The branches of the appellants’ separate cross motions which were, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action insofar as asserted against them were properly denied. The record was not ripe for reaching a summary determination as to the fourth cause of action, since discovery remains outstanding (see, Sobers v Lopresti, 283 AD2d 633; Lantigua v Mallick, 263 AD2d 467; Grotto & Assocs. v Lax, 174 AD2d 394, 395). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, 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 defendants Honeywell, Inc., and Johnson Controls, Inc., separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme‘Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 12, 1999, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification pursuant to CPLR article 9 and denied those branches of their separate cross motions which were, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action insofar as asserted against them.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification for past or present employees of the defendant J. P. Jack Corporation who performed electrical or other construction work on certain public works projects (see, CPLR 901 [a]; Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83).

The branches of the appellants’ separate cross motions which were, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action insofar as asserted against them were properly denied. The record was not ripe for reaching a summary determination as to the fourth cause of action, since discovery remains outstanding (see, Sobers v Lopresti, 283 AD2d 633; Lantigua v Mallick, 263 AD2d 467; Grotto & Assocs. v Lax, 174 AD2d 394, 395). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 671, 729 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-j-p-jack-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack