Harold Davis v Branford Estates

Annotate this Case
Davis v Branford Estates, Ltd. 2004 NY Slip Op 04440 [2 NY3d 816] June 8, 2004 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. As corrected through Wednesday, September 1, 2004

[*1] Harold Davis, Appellant,
v
Branford Estates, Ltd., et al., Respondents.

Decided June 8, 2004

Davis v Branford Estates, 305 AD2d 627, modified.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas M. Bona, P.C., White Plains (Stephanie K. Cervoni of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by remitting to Supreme Court for entry of a judgment solely against defendants Leonard of Delaware Limited Partnership and 117-13 Union Turnpike Corp. individually and doing business as Leonard Worth Associates, LLC, and, as so modified, affirmed.

The verdict sheet named Leonard Worth Associates instead of Leonard Worth Associates, LLC, as the defendant. The entire trial on liability was defended by Leonard Worth Associates, LLC (LLC), which made no motion or attempt to distinguish itself from Leonard Worth Associates, and the jury deliberations undisputedly concerned Leonard Worth Associates, LLC (see Cullen v Naples, 31 NY2d 818, 820 [1972]; Dalrymple v Williams, 63 NY 361, 364[*2][1875]). Accordingly, defendant LLC's attempts to disavow liability after the verdict are unavailing. Plaintiff's remaining arguments as to defendant Branford Estates, Ltd. lack merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, without costs, by remitting to Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.