Sutton Apartments Corp. v. Bradhurst 100 Development LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutton Apartments Corp. v. Bradhurst 100 Development LLC

127 A.D.3d 603, 5 N.Y.S.3d 868

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

DecidedApril 23, 2015

Docket14910 104289/10

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 603 (Sutton Apartments Corp. v. Bradhurst 100 Development LLC) 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

Sutton Apartments Corp. v. Bradhurst 100 Development LLC, 127 A.D.3d 603, 5 N.Y.S.3d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered April 7, 2014, which denied defendant Bradhurst 100 Development LLC’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing certain claims in accordance with a prior order of this Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the appeal from the motion court’s order, entered January 25, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint dated July 11, 2012, this Court explicitly “reinstated” “the breach of contract claim against the sponsor regarding the common elements” and “affirmed” “[t]he dismissal of the remaining claims” (107 AD3d 646, 647 [1st Dept 2013]). Thus, there are no existing claims to be dismissed by the motion court (see Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v Hellenic Mut. War Risks Assn. [Bermuda] Ltd., 79 AD3d 601 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 17 NY3d 783 [2011]).

Plaintiffs failed to establish that either the motion court or this Court committed “scrivener’s errors” in their prior orders.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered April 7, 2014, which denied defendant Bradhurst 100 Development LLC’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing certain claims in accordance with a prior order of this Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the appeal from the motion court’s order, entered January 25, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint dated July 11, 2012, this Court explicitly “reinstated” “the breach of contract claim against the sponsor regarding the common elements” and “affirmed” “[t]he dismissal of the remaining claims” (107 AD3d 646, 647 [1st Dept 2013]). Thus, there are no existing claims to be dismissed by the motion court (see Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v Hellenic Mut. War Risks Assn. [Bermuda] Ltd., 79 AD3d 601 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 17 NY3d 783 [2011]).

Plaintiffs failed to establish that either the motion court or this Court committed “scrivener’s errors” in their prior orders.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 603, 5 N.Y.S.3d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-apartments-corp-v-bradhurst-100-development-llc-nyappdiv-2015.