YURIY ANTONYSHYN res, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, def, 50 VARICK, LLC, ET AL., APPELLANTS (AND TWO THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS)

YURIY ANTONYSHYN res, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, def, 50 VARICK, LLC, ET AL., APPELLANTS (AND TWO THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS). (INDEX NO. 4094/12)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants 50 Varick, LLC, and Foundations Group, Inc., incorrectly sued herein as Foundations Interior Design Corp., appeal, and the defendant Nuway Interior Corp. separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated December 22, 2014, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240(1) insofar as asserted against each of them, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court (Velasquez, J.), dated October 2, 2015, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240(1) insofar as asserted against each of them.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

YURIY ANTONYSHYN res, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, def, 50 VARICK, LLC, ET AL., APPELLANTS (AND TWO THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS). (INDEX NO. 4094/12)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants 50 Varick, LLC, and Foundations Group, Inc., incorrectly sued herein as Foundations Interior Design Corp., appeal, and the defendant Nuway Interior Corp. separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated December 22, 2014, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240(1) insofar as asserted against each of them, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court (Velasquez, J.), dated October 2, 2015, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240(1) insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order dated December 22, 2014, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240(1) insofar as asserted against the appellants is denied as premature, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery; and it is further,

YURIY ANTONYSHYN res, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, def, 50 VARICK, LLC, ET AL., APPELLANTS (AND TWO THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS)

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal