Leo v City of New York

Leo v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 08340 Decided on December 12, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department 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.

Decided on December 12, 2013
Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Richter, Clark, JJ. 11342- 11342A- 11342CIn re 91st Street Crane Collapse Litigation
117294/08 11342B

[*1]Donald R. Leo, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

The City of New York, et al., Defendants, New York Crane & Equipment Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff, Sorbara Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. [And All Related Actions]




Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York
(Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for New York Crane &
Equipment Corp., James F. Lomma, James F. Lomma Inc. and TES
Inc., appellants.
Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York (Scott D. Clausen of
counsel), for 1765 First Associates, LLC, appellant.
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C.,
New York (Marcia K. Raicus of counsel), for Leon D.
DeMatteis Construction Corp., appellant.
Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (B. Jennifer
Jaffee of counsel), for Sorbara Construction Corp., appellant.
Bernadette Panzella, P.C., New York (Bernadette Panzella of
counsel), for respondent. [*2]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 10, 2013, which, inter alia, denied defendants-respondents' motions to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks money damages for the wrongful death of her decedent, and "a sum of money alone can provide full relief to [her] under the facts alleged" (see Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232 [1st Dept 1988]; CPLR 4101[1]). Contrary to defendants-respondents' contention, "plaintiff's ritualistic use in the prayer for relief of the language and such other and further relief as to this court seems just and proper', does not change the legal character of the relief demanded" (id. at 233).

Plaintiff's request for sanctions on appeal is denied.

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 12, 2013

CLERK