Case Name: Norrel Sutherland, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants; Ingersoll-Rand Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.); Norrel Sutherland, Appellant, v. Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2000-05-18
Citations: 95 N.Y.2d 790
Docket Number: 
Parties: Norrel Sutherland, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Norrel Sutherland, Appellant, v Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 790–790

Head Matter:
Norrel Sutherland, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Norrel Sutherland, Appellant, v Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 2.)
Submitted March 20, 2000;
decided May 18, 2000

Opinion:
Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal with respect to defendants Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., the City of New York, the Department of Sanitation of the City of New York, and the Department of Business Services of the City of New York, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portion of the Appellate Division order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine an action within the meaning of the Constitution.