Seay v. Stateside Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seay v. Stateside Construction Corp.

282 A.D.2d 268, 722 N.Y.S.2d 871

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

DecidedApril 12, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 268 (Seay v. Stateside Construction 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

Seay v. Stateside Construction Corp., 282 A.D.2d 268, 722 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered September 7, 2000, which denied the motion of second third-party defendant Gateway Demolition Corporation to quash the notice vouching Gateway Demolition into the original action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

In an order dated June 8, 2000, this Court affirmed the severance of the second third-party action brought against Gateway Demolition, observing that “[t]he delay in commencing the second third-party action * * * was sufficiently prejudicial, both to plaintiff and Gateway, to support the motion court’s exercise of discretion in granting the motion to sever the second third-party action” (Seay v Stateside Constr. Corp., 273 AD2d 60 [citation omitted]). It having been determined that the second third-party action against Gateway Demolition was untimely because the case was too far advanced, Fuller’s notice vouching in Gateway is equally untimely (see, Cole v Long Is. Light. Co., 14 AD2d 922). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered September 7, 2000, which denied the motion of second third-party defendant Gateway Demolition Corporation to quash the notice vouching Gateway Demolition into the original action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

In an order dated June 8, 2000, this Court affirmed the severance of the second third-party action brought against Gateway Demolition, observing that “[t]he delay in commencing the second third-party action * * * was sufficiently prejudicial, both to plaintiff and Gateway, to support the motion court’s exercise of discretion in granting the motion to sever the second third-party action” (Seay v Stateside Constr. Corp., 273 AD2d 60 [citation omitted]). It having been determined that the second third-party action against Gateway Demolition was untimely because the case was too far advanced, Fuller’s notice vouching in Gateway is equally untimely (see, Cole v Long Is. Light. Co., 14 AD2d 922). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 268, 722 N.Y.S.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seay-v-stateside-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack