Superb General Contracting Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Superb General Contracting Co. v. City of New York

62 A.D.3d 423, 877 N.Y.S.2d 687

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

DecidedMay 5, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 423 (Superb General Contracting Co. v. City of New York) 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

Superb General Contracting Co. v. City of New York, 62 A.D.3d 423, 877 N.Y.S.2d 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J), entered July 18, 2008, which granted defendant City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and granted the other defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the entire complaint against the Amherst defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On a prior order (39 AD3d 204 [2007], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 800 [2008]), we dismissed the second through seventh causes of action against the City and the entire complaint against defendant S.J. Rehab, under the statute of limitations. That ruling constituted law of the case, precluding plaintiff from raising the issue on the present appeal (see Clark Constr Corp. v BLF Realty Holding Corp., 54 AD3d 604 [2008]; J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d 809 [2007]), and plaintiff even conceded as much. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J), entered July 18, 2008, which granted defendant City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and granted the other defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the entire complaint against the Amherst defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On a prior order (39 AD3d 204 [2007], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 800 [2008]), we dismissed the second through seventh causes of action against the City and the entire complaint against defendant S.J. Rehab, under the statute of limitations. That ruling constituted law of the case, precluding plaintiff from raising the issue on the present appeal (see Clark Constr Corp. v BLF Realty Holding Corp., 54 AD3d 604 [2008]; J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d 809 [2007]), and plaintiff even conceded as much. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 423, 877 N.Y.S.2d 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superb-general-contracting-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack