Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower LLC , 921 N.Y.S.2d 601 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    557
    CA 10-01745
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.
    ALTSHULER SHAHAM PROVIDENT FUNDS, LTD.,
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    GML TOWER LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
    THE PIKE COMPANY, INC., THE HAYNER HOYT
    CORPORATION AND SYRACUSE MERIT ELECTRIC,
    A DIVISION OF O’CONNELL ELECTRIC CO., INC.,
    DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
    HANCOCK & ESTABROOK, SYRACUSE, AND TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, NEW YORK
    CITY, D’AGOSTINO, LEVINE, LANDESMAN & LEDERMAN, LLP, SPECIAL APPELLATE
    COUNSEL, NEW YORK CITY (BRUCE H. LEDERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
    GILBERTI STINZIANO HEINTZ & SMITH PC, SYRACUSE, HAHN LOESER & PARKS
    LLP, CLEVELAND, OHIO (TIMOTHY M. BITTEL, OF THE OHIO AND FLORIDA BARS,
    ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT THE
    HAYNER HOYT CORPORATION.
    PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK J. MORETTI OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT THE PIKE COMPANY, INC.
    BYRNE, COSTELLO & PICKARD, P.C., SYRACUSE (JORDAN R. PAVLUS OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT SYRACUSE MERIT ELECTRIC, A DIVISION
    OF O’CONNELL ELECTRIC CO., INC.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County
    (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered May 20, 2010. The order granted
    the motions of defendants The Pike Company, Inc., The Hayner Hoyt
    Corporation and Syracuse Merit Electric, a Division of O’Connell
    Electric Co., Inc., for summary judgment.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at
    Supreme Court (Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v GML Tower,
    LLC, 
    28 Misc 3d 475
    ). We add only that we do not address plaintiff’s
    contention that the 2007 Loan Agreement was a preliminary agreement
    that expired before the mortgage at issue was filed. That contention
    is raised for the first time on appeal and “ ‘could have been obviated
    -2-                           557
    CA 10-01745
    or cured by factual showings or legal countersteps’ ” in Supreme Court
    (Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839, 840).
    Entered:   April 29, 2011                      Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 10-01745

Citation Numbers: 83 A.D.3d 1563, 921 N.Y.S.2d 601

Filed Date: 4/29/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024