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.

In Re East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation. v. East 51st Street Development Company

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


November 15, 2012

IN RE EAST 51ST STREET CRANE COLLAPSE LITIGATION.
JOHN DELLA PORTA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EAST 51ST STREET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, RELIANCE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, JOY CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. [AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION]

Matter of East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

Decided on November 15, 2012

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.

Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse, Roman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered June 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant RCG's motion to renew with respect to a prior order determining that the indemnification clause of its 2008 construction management agreement with defendant/third-party plaintiff East 51st Street Development Company, LLC was triggered, thereby obligating RCG to indemnify East 51st Street for any losses arising out of the work of RCG or its contractors, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that RCG failed to demonstrate a reasonable justification for the failure to present the "new evidence" in opposition to the initial motion (CPLR 2221[e]; see American Audio Serv. Bur. Inc. v AT & T Corp., 33 AD3d 473, 476 [1st Dept 2006]). Further, the motion court correctly concluded that the evidence would not have changed the prior determination, since the parties' 2008 construction management agreement contained a broad merger clause, and thus, extrinsic evidence, such as the oral agreements alleged by RCG, should not be considered to alter, vary or contradict the written agreement (Jarecki v Shung Moo Louie, 95 NY2d 665, 669 [2001]; see also Torres v D'Alesso, 80 AD3d 46, 51 [1st Dept 2010]).

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

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 15, 2012

CLERK

20121115

© 1992-2012 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.