Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Qui v. Morningside Heights Housing Corp.

Sup Ct, New York County

August 9, 2013

MIAO QUI AND XINGING ZHU, Plaintiff,
v.
MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS HOUSING CORP., Defendants. MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS HOUSING CORP., Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
BREND RENOVATION CORP., Third Party Defendant. Index No. 153059/2012

Unpublished Opinion

EILEEN A. RAKOWER JUDGE.

The following papers, numbered 1 to __ were read on this motion for/to

PAPERS NUMBERED
Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits ... 1, 2
Answer — Affidavits — Exhibits_ 3, 4
Replying Affidavits 5

Cross-Motion: Yes X No

Plaintiff brings this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained on August 28, 2011 at 100 Lasalle Street, New York, New York, ("the premises") when she slipped and fell in her apartment as a result of a water leak coming from the roof. Plaintiff alleges that the roof of her apartment building was in a defective condition due to improper repairs. Plaintiff now bring this motion to: (1) sever the third party action; (2) to compel the deposition of the Defendant by a certain date, and; (3) to permit this matter to be placed on the trial calendar during the pendency of said deposition pursuant to Uniform Rules 202.21(d), or in the alternative, extending the time to file a note of issue. Defendant Morningside Heights Housing Corp. ("Morningside") and Third-Party Defendant Brend Renovation Corp. ("Brend") oppose.

This action was commenced on May 23, 2012 against Morningside, who owns and operates the premises. On April 30, 2013, Morningside, served a Third Party Summons and Complaint upon Brend, the contractor hired to repair a leak coming from the roof of the premises. On May 16, 2013, Brend interposed the third-party answer.

Plaintiff now asserts that the third-party action should be severed on the grounds that the newly commenced third-party action "is a non-meritorious delaying tactic, intended to stall the resolution of the case".

CPLR §603, provides:

In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the court may order a severance of claims, or may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue. The court may order the trial of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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