Case ID: ad3d_127/html/0603-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sutton Apartments Corporation et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Bradhurst 100 Development LLC, Appellant-Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
    [5 NYS3d 868]
   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.