Case Name: Ramon Fresco et al., Respondents, v. 157 East 72nd Street Condominium et al., Defendants, and DNA Construction Corp., Sued Herein as DNA Construction, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent. Lumar Restoration Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. (And Another Action.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2004-06-24
Citations: 3 N.Y.3d 630
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ramon Fresco et al., Respondents, v 157 East 72nd Street Condominium et al., Defendants, and DNA Construction Corp., Sued Herein as DNA Construction, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent. Lumar Restoration Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. (And Another Action.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 630–630

Head Matter:
Ramon Fresco et al., Respondents, v 157 East 72nd Street Condominium et al., Defendants, and DNA Construction Corp., Sued Herein as DNA Construction, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent. Lumar Restoration Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. (And Another Action.)
Submitted April 19, 2004;
decided June 24, 2004

Opinion:
Motions for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution (see Whitfield v City of New York, 90 NY2d 777).