VERYLN DEROUEN, ETC., plf-res, v. SAVOY PARK OWNER, L.L.C., def-ap, COLUMN FINANCIAL INC., def

10496. VERYLN DEROUEN, ETC., plf-res, v. SAVOY PARK OWNER, L.L.C., def-ap, COLUMN FINANCIAL INC., def — SAVOY PARK OWNER, L.L.C., Third-Party plf-ap, COLUMN FINANCIAL INC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. GUARDSMAN ELEVATOR CO., INC., Third-Party def-res — McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for ap — Weiser & Associates, LLP, New York (Edward V. Spark of counsel), for Veryln Derouen, res — Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Van Etten, LLP, Melville (James V. Derenze of counsel), for Guardsman Elevator Co., Inc., res ——Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 18, 2012, which denied the motion of defendant Savoy Park Owner, L.L.C. (Savoy) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and for summary judgment on its third-party complaint against Guardsman Elevator Co., Inc., and granted Guardsman's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny Guardsman's motion as to Savoy's claim for common-law indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10496. VERYLN DEROUEN, ETC., plf-res, v. SAVOY PARK OWNER, L.L.C., def-ap, COLUMN FINANCIAL INC., def — SAVOY PARK OWNER, L.L.C., Third-Party plf-ap, COLUMN FINANCIAL INC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. GUARDSMAN ELEVATOR CO., INC., Third-Party def-res — McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for ap — Weiser & Associates, LLP, New York (Edward V. Spark of counsel), for Veryln Derouen, res — Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Van Etten, LLP, Melville (James V. Derenze of counsel), for Guardsman Elevator Co., Inc., res ——Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 18, 2012, which denied the motion of defendant Savoy Park Owner, L.L.C. (Savoy) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and for summary judgment on its third-party complaint against Guardsman Elevator Co., Inc., and granted Guardsman’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny Guardsman’s motion as to Savoy’s claim for common-law indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court found that Savoy’s motion was untimely because it incorrectly used the date Savoy filed its motion, not the date it was served, to calculate whether more than 120 days had passed since the filing of the note of issue (see Gazes v Bennett, 38 AD3d 287 [1st Dept 2007]; CPLR 2211). Savoy’s motion for summary judgment was timely and should have been considered.

VERYLN DEROUEN, ETC., plf-res, v. SAVOY PARK OWNER, L.L.C., def-ap, COLUMN FINANCIAL INC., def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal