Preview:

Paragas v Lecruise (2008 NY Slip Op 52557(U))
[*1]


Decided on December 16, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ 2006-761 Q C.
Kalaya Paragas, Respondent,
against
John R. Lecruise and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellants, -and -
METROPOLITAN SUBURBAN BUS AUTHORITY and OSCAR L. WALTER, Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lee A. Mayerson, J.), entered November 30, 2005. The order denied the motion by defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to it and granted so much of the cross motion of defendants-respondents Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority and Oscar L. Walter as dismissed the cross claim of New York City Transit Authority against them. The appeal from so much of the order as granted the cross motion of defendants Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority and Oscar L. Walter to dismiss the cross claim deemed an appeal from a judgment dated March 30, 2006 (CPLR 5501 [c]) dismissing the cross claim and awarding defendants Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority and Oscar L. Walter $240 in costs and disbursements.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/1/2008_52557.htm[4/21/2013 11:14:07 AM] Paragas v Lecruise (2008 NY Slip Op 52557(U))
Appeal by John Lecruise from so much of the order denying the motion by New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and from so much of the judgment dismissing the cross claim of New York City Transit Authority is dismissed. [*2]
Judgment affirmed without costs.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
At the outset we note that although John R. Lecruise was named as a defendant, an examination of the record indicates that he was never served and was not a party to the action. The brief of New York City Transit Authority acknowledges that Lecruise was not served and that New York City Transit Authority's motion for summary judgment was made solely on its behalf. However, the brief points out that the appeal was nevertheless taken on behalf of both New York City Transit Authority and John R. Lecruise. Although the court granted judgment for costs and disbursements not only against the New York City Transit Authority but also against John R. Lecruise, the attorney for Lecruise does not raise any issue on this appeal concerning such award.
The appeal by John R. Lecruise from so much of the order as denied the motion by New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and from so much of the judgment as dismissed the cross claim of New York City Transit Authority against Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority and Oscar L. Walter, must be dismissed inasmuch as he was not aggrieved thereby (CPLR 5511).
Defendant-appellant New York City Transit Authority moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law

Download 2008_52557.pdf

New York Law