Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Concord Village Owners, Inc. v. Keyspan Corp.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 29, 2009

CONCORD VILLAGE OWNERS, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
KEYSPAN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
TRINITY COMMUNICATIONS CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. [AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION}

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered April 9, 2009, which, in an action for property damage caused by a ruptured gas main, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue and, upon reargument, denied defendant Keyspan Corporation's previously granted motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse, RomÁn, JJ.

106917/04 590684/04

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting reargument (see Sheridan v Very, Ltd., 56 AD3d 305 [2008]; Security Pac. Natl. Bank v Evans, 31 AD3d 278, 281 [2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 837 [2007]). Keyspan was on notice of the theory alleging that it was negligent in failing to provide complete and accurate information as to the precise location of the ruptured gas line, since the theory had been advanced in the complaint of another party in the consolidated action, had been raised in plaintiff's opposition papers on the prior motion and had been the subject of extensive deposition testimony (see Manhattan Ctr. for Early Learning Inc. v New York Child Resource Ctr., Inc., 59 AD3d 365 [2009]; see also Ramos v Jake Realty Co., 21 AD3d 744, 745 [2005]). Furthermore, the record demonstrates that there are triable issues of fact as to this theory of liability.

We have considered Keyspan's other contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20091229

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.