Thiab v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thiab v. City of New York

82 A.D.3d 1083, 918 N.Y.2d 886

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1083 (Thiab 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

Thiab v. City of New York, 82 A.D.3d 1083, 918 N.Y.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1084]*1084The appellants, who are defendants in this action, are not aggrieved by those portions of the order which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants HHM Associates, Inc. (hereinafter HHM), and Jimmy Mazza & Son Construction Corp. (hereinafter Jimmy Mazza) (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144 [2010]). While a defendant may be aggrieved by an order dismissing its own cross claim or third-party claim against another defendant (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV Inc., 76 AD3d 144 [2010]), the record as submitted to this Court does not disclose that the appellants asserted any cross claims or third-party claims against HHM or Jimmy Mazza. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety (see Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 166 AD2d 553 [1990]; Blake Realty v Shiller, 87 AD2d 729 [1982]). Covello, J.R, Belen, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[1084]*1084The appellants, who are defendants in this action, are not aggrieved by those portions of the order which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants HHM Associates, Inc. (hereinafter HHM), and Jimmy Mazza & Son Construction Corp. (hereinafter Jimmy Mazza) (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144 [2010]). While a defendant may be aggrieved by an order dismissing its own cross claim or third-party claim against another defendant (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV Inc., 76 AD3d 144 [2010]), the record as submitted to this Court does not disclose that the appellants asserted any cross claims or third-party claims against HHM or Jimmy Mazza. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety (see Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 166 AD2d 553 [1990]; Blake Realty v Shiller, 87 AD2d 729 [1982]). Covello, J.R, Belen, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1083, 918 N.Y.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thiab-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack