Brooklyn: 718.531.9700 | Manhattan: 212.696.4LAW
Toll-free: 855.HELD.HINES | Email: info@heldhines.com

Held & Hines Wins Another Appeal Against Boies Schiller & Extell Development

Coffey v CRP/Extell Parcel I. L.P.

Annotate this Case

Coffey v CRP/Extell Parcel I. L.P. 2018 NY Slip Op 03430 Decided on May 10, 2018 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 May 10, 2018
Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Webber, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
6502 114073/09

[*1]Kelly Coffey, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

CRP/Extell Parcel I. L.P., et al., Defendants-Appellants, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Defendant.

Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk (Jason Cyrulnik of counsel), for appellants.

Held & Hines, L.L.P., New York (Scott B. Richman of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 12, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion, dated January 11, 2017, to vacate the court’s prior judgment entered April 2, 2013 and/or order entered August 2, 2013, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The reversal of the grant of statutory interest in the related case (CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v Cuomo, 2012 NY Slip Op 32329(U) [Sup Ct, NY County 2012], revd 124 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2015], affd 27 NY3d 1034 [2016]) has no preclusive effect on this plaintiff’s entitlement to such interest, as this Court’s prior reversal in that case, and the Court of Appeals decision affirming this Court’s determination, were based on the lower court’s lack of jurisdiction in that case to entertain a motion for such interest after the proceeding had been dismissed. That factual underpinning is not present here. Moreover, this Court has already affirmed an appeal by these defendants from an order which included postjudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% (Coffey v CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P., 122 AD3d 504 [1st Dept 2014]), and there is no basis to disturb that determination now.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 10, 2018

CLERK

Posted in: Uncategorized

Areas of practice

  • Board of Education Abuse/Neglect
  • Breach of Contract Cases
  • Broker Commission Disputes
  • Civil Rights
  • Class Actions
  • Closings
  • Condominium & Cooperative Representation
  • Construction Accidents
  • Corporate Formation
  • Defamation & Slander Cases
  • Defective/Hazardous Products
  • Dog Bites/Animal Attacks
  • Drug Litigation
  • Employment Law
  • Ice/Snow Cases
  • Insurance Company Bad Faith Claims
  • Knockdown Bicycle Cases
  • Landlord & Tenant
  • Liquor / Tobacco / Lotto Licensing
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Membership / Shareholder Agreements
  • Motor Vehicle Accdients
  • Nursing Home Abuse/Neglect
  • Pedestrian Knockdown Cases
  • Personal Injury
  • Premise Liability
  • Prisoner’s Rights
  • Real Estate Broker Commission Disputes
  • Real Estate Closings
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Refinances
  • Sale of Business
  • Slip & Fall Accidents
  • Trademarks
  • Wrongful Death