VINCENT TARANTINO, ap, v. QUEENS BALLPARK COMPANY, LLC RESPONDENTS def

VINCENT TARANTINO, ap, v. QUEENS BALLPARK COMPANY, LLC RESPONDENTS def — (INDEX NO. 8674/12)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), dated April 3, 2013, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Queens Ballpark Company, LLC, Sterling Mets, L.P., Sterling Mets Operations, LLC, Sterling Project Development Group, LLC, Sterling Equities, Inc., New York City Industrial Development Agency, and City of New York which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Queens Ballpark Company, LLC, Sterling Mets, L.P., Sterling Mets Operations, LLC, Sterling Project Development Group, LLC, Sterling Equities, Inc., and City of New York, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Aramark Sports and Entertainment Group, LLC, Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, and Aramark Sports, LLC, which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Hok Group, Inc., Populous Group, LLC, and Populous Architects, P.C., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

VINCENT TARANTINO, ap, v. QUEENS BALLPARK COMPANY, LLC RESPONDENTS def — (INDEX NO. 8674/12)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), dated April 3, 2013, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Queens Ballpark Company, LLC, Sterling Mets, L.P., Sterling Mets Operations, LLC, Sterling Project Development Group, LLC, Sterling Equities, Inc., New York City Industrial Development Agency, and City of New York which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Queens Ballpark Company, LLC, Sterling Mets, L.P., Sterling Mets Operations, LLC, Sterling Project Development Group, LLC, Sterling Equities, Inc., and City of New York, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Aramark Sports and Entertainment Group, LLC, Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, and Aramark Sports, LLC, which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Hok Group, Inc., Populous Group, LLC, and Populous Architects, P.C., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

VINCENT TARANTINO, ap, v. QUEENS BALLPARK COMPANY, LLC RESPONDENTS def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal