Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Company, Inc

6/21/2015
Sanatassv.ConsolidatedInvestingCompany,Inc.|NewYorkLawJournal
ThisisGoogle'scacheofhttp://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202501910050/SanatassvConsolidated
InvestingCompanyInc.ItisasnapshotofthepageasitappearedonMay6,201514:00:24GMT.
Thecurrentpagecouldhavechangedinthemeantime.Learnmore
Fullversion
Textonlyversion
Viewsource
Tip:Toquicklyfindyoursearchtermonthispage,pressCtrl+ForF(Mac)andusethefindbar.
SECTIONS
Search
Subscribe
SignIn
Home
News
ExpertColumns
Decisions
Judges&Courts
YourPractice
Classifieds&PublicNotices
LegalMarketplace
TheNewspaper
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7wBD852sAoJ:www.newyorklawjournal.com/id%3D1202501910050/SanatassvConsolidatedInve
1/14
6/21/2015
Sanatassv.ConsolidatedInvestingCompany,Inc.
March22,2007|0Comments
share
shareonlinkedin
Facebook
shareontwitter
shareongoogle+
ShareWithEmail
RECIPIENT,SEPARATEMULTIPLEADDRESSESWITHCOMMAS
Addacomment...
Send
Thankyouforsharing!
Yourarticlewassuccessfullysharedwiththecontactsyouprovided.
print
reprints
AppellateDivision,1stDept
ByAndrias,J.P.,Nardelli,Williams,Sweeny,McGuire,JJ.
8189.
ChristopherSanatassplfap,
v.
ConsolidatedInvestingCompany,Inc.defres,
NorbertNatansondef
[AndAThirdPartyAction]Giuffr&Kaplan,P.C.,Hicksville(StevenL.Kaplanofcounsel),forap
Goldberg&Carlton,PLLC,NewYork(MichaelLeydenofcounsel),forres
Order,SupremeCourt,NewYorkCounty(SaraleeEvans,J.),enteredFebruary28,2005,which,insofaras
appealedfromaslimitedbythebriefs,grantedthemotionoftheConsolidatedInvestingCompanydefendantsfor
summaryjudgmentdismissingplaintiff'scausesofactionbasedonLaborLaw240(1)and241(6),dismissed
thecomplaint,allcounterclaimsandthirdpartycrossclaimsagainstthem,anddeniedplaintiff'scrossmotionfor
summaryjudgmentonsuchcauses,affirmed,withoutcosts.
ThemotioncourtproperlyfoundthatConsolidatedisnotliabletoplaintiffpursuanttotherelevantsectionsof
theLaborLawbecausetheairconditioninginstallationwasperformedwithoutitsconsentandinviolationofthe
lease,whichrequiredpriorwrittenapprovalforanyinstallations(Abbatiellov.LancasterStudioAssoc.,3NY3d
2/14
6/21/2015
46,51[2004]Whelenv.WarwickVal.Civic&SocialClub,47NY2d970,971[1979]Ceballosv.Kaufman,
249AD2d40[1998]Brownv.ChristopherSt.OwnersCorp.,211AD2d441,442[1995],affdonothergrounds
87NY2d938[1996]).
Inadditiontotheforegoingreason,plaintiff'sclaimpursuanttoLaborLaw241(6)wasproperlydismissed
inasmuchasIndustrialCode(12NYCRR)236.1(b),requiringhoistingequipmenttobemaintainedingood
repairandproperoperatingconditionatalltimes,withsufficientinspectionstoinsuresuchmaintenance,isnot
sufficientlyspecifictosupportastatutoryviolation(seeRossv.CurtisPalmerHydroElec.Co.,81NY2d494,
503504[1993]seealsoRamosv.ChampionCombustion,Inc.,12AD3d227,228[2004]).
Wehaveconsideredplaintiffs'otherargumentsandfindthemwithoutmerit.
AllconcurexceptSweenyandMcGuire,JJ.whodissentinamemorandumbyMcGuire,J.asfollows:
McGUIRE,J.(dissenting)PlaintiffChristopherSanatass,anemployeeofanonpartycontractor,wasinstallingair
conditioningunitsandperformingductworkinabuildingownedbydefendantConsolidatedInvestingCompany
(Consolidated).TheworkwasbeingperformedonafloorleasedbydefendantChromaCopy(Chroma),a
subsidiaryofthirdpartydefendantC2Media(collectively,thelessees).Theleaseprohibitedthelesseesfrom
makinganychangestothedemisedpremiseswithoutthepriorconsentofConsolidated.Neitherofthelessees
obtainedConsolidated'sconsentfortheworkperformedbySanatassandhiscoworkers.Sanatasssustained
personalinjurieswhenanindustrialairconditioningunitheandacoworkerwereattemptingtoinstallinthe
ceilingfellwhilebeinghoisted.Sanatass,andhiswifederivatively,commencedthisactionagainst,among
others,ConsolidatedandChroma,assertingcausesofactionunderLaborLaw240(1)and241(6).
ConsolidatedassertedacrossclaimagainstChromaforindemnificationandimpleadedC2Mediaseeking
indemnificationfromit.SupremeCourtgrantedthoseaspectsofConsolidated'smotionthatsoughtsummary
judgmentdismissingthecomplaintandallotherclaimsasassertedagainstit,anddeniedplaintiffs'crossmotion
forpartialsummaryjudgmentontheissueofliabilityunderbothLaborLaw240(1)and241(6).Thisappeal
byplaintiffsensued.ThemajorityaffirmsSupremeCourt'sdismissalofthecomplaintasagainstConsolidated,
reasoningthat"theairconditioninginstallationwasperformedwithout[Consolidated's]consentandinviolation
ofthelease,whichrequiredpriorwrittenapprovalforanyinstallations."BecauseIbelievethemajority
misapprehendstheliabilityofanownerunderLaborLaw240(1),Irespectfullydissent.LaborLaw240(1)
imposesliabilityon"allowners"andthedutyitimposes"toprovidesafeworkingconditionsisnondelegable
regardlessofcontrol"(Gordonv.EasternRy.Supply,82NY2d555,559560[1993]).Rejectingthedefendant's
claiminGordonthatitwasnotliablebecauseithadleasedthepremisesonwhichtheaccidentoccurredto
anotherentityandthatitneithercontractedfornorbenefittedfromtheworkperformedbytheplaintiff,theCourt
statedthatthefollowingprinciplewascontrolling:"Liability[underLaborLaw240(1)]restsuponthefactof
ownershipandwhether[theowner]hadcontractedfortheworkorbenefittedfromitarelegallyirrelevant"(id.at
560seeColemanv.CityofNewYork,91NY2d821[1997]Celestinev.CityofNewYork,86AD2d592[1982],
affd59NY2d938[1983]Mejiav.Moriello,286AD2d667[2001]Seemuellerv.CountyofErie,202AD2d
1052[1994]).ThemajorityreliesuponAbbatiellov.LancasterStudioAssocs.(3NY3d46[2004])inwhichthe
Courtconcludedthatanoutofpossessionownerwasnotliabletoacabletelevisionrepairmaninjuredonthe
owner'spremiseswhilerespondingtothecomplaintofatenantwhowasacabletelevisionsubscriber.TheCourt
heldthattheoutofpossessionownercouldnotbedeemedan"owner"forthepurposesofLaborLaw240(1)
because,underarticle11ofthePublicServicelaw,theownerwasrequiredtoprovidethecablerepairmanwith
accesstothepremises.Inthisregard,theCourtnotedthat:"[Theowner]ispowerlesstodeterminewhichcable
companyisentitledtooperate,repairormaintainthecablefacilitiesonitsproperty,sincesuchdecisionlieswith
themunicipalitythefranchisor.TheCityofNewYorkgave[thecablecompany]thefranchise,andtherightto
installitscablefacilities.Thisincludedtherighttomaintainandserviceitsfacilitiesatthepremisesfreefrom
interferenceafterinstallation"(id.at52[citationsomitted]).UnliketheownerinAbbatiello,Consolidatedwas
notrequiredbylawtoprovideSanatasswithaccesstothepremises.Nor,ofcourse,wasConsolidatedlegally
"powerless"todeterminewhatworkwasperformedonthepremises.Tothecontrary,thelesseeswererequired
toobtainConsolidated'sconsentforany"changesinortothedemisedpremisesofanynature."Althoughthe
lessees'failuretoobtainConsolidated'sconsentmaybearonConsolidated'srightsundertheleasetoadefense
andindemnificationfromthelessees,neitherthatfailurenorConsolidated'slackofknowledgeoftheworkare
3/14
6/21/2015
relevanttoConsolidated'sstatusasan"owner"forpurposesofLaborLaw240(1)(seegenerallyEngev.
OntarioCountyAirportMgt.Co.,LLC,26AD3d896[2006]).AsAbbatiellomadeclear,thecommonelement
"toallcasesimposingLaborLaw240(1)liabilityonanoutofpossessionowners...issomenexusbetween
theownerandtheworker"(3NY3dat51).TheverynexusrecognizedinAbbatiellotobesufficienttoimpose
LaborLaw240(1)liabilityaleasebetweentheownerlessorandthelesseewhohiredtheplaintiffisthe
nexuspresentbetweenConsolidatedandSanatass(seeid.seealsoGordon,supra).Atbottom,theAbbatiello
holdingisnarrowanditsrationaledoesnotapplyhere.1AsdidtheCourtofAppealsinColeman,weshould
"declinetoexempt[Consolidated]whichisinfacttheownerfromtheplainwordandreachofthestatute,
leavingthatfortheLegislatureifitsochooses"(91NY2dat823[citationsomitted]seeJoblonv.Solow,91
NY2d457,465n2[1998]).2Consolidated'sremainingargumentswithrespecttoplaintiffs'LaborLaw240(1)
causeofactioncanbedealtwithinshortorder.Sanatasswasengagedinthealterationofabuildingorstructure,
i.e.,makingsignificantphysicalalterationstothepremises,withinthemeaningofLaborLaw240(1)(see
Dankulichv.FelcharMfg.Corp.,247AD2d660[1998]seealsoJoblon,supraScallyv.RegionalIndus.
Partnership,9AD3d865[2004]).Plaintiffs'evidencedemonstratedthatSanatasswasinjuredwhilehoistinga
1500to2500poundairconditioningunitofftheground,whichheandacoworkerintendedtoinstallinthe
ceilingabove.Thematerialliftsusedtohoisttheloadwereinadequate,andwhentheunitwasraised
approximatelysevenfeetoffthefloor,oneofthemateriallifts"gaveway"andtheunitdroppedthreetofourfeet
knockingSanatasstothegroundandnearlycrushinghim.Thus,Sanatasswasexposedtoanelevationrelated
hazarda"fallingobject"coveredbyLaborLaw240(1)(seeNarducciv.ManhassetBayAssoc.,96NY2d
259[2001]).IagreewiththemajoritythatSupremeCourtcorrectlydismissedplaintiffs'causeofactionunder
LaborLaw241(6)sincetheregulationuponwhichthiscauseofactionispremised,12NYCRR236.1(b),is
notsufficientlyspecifictosupporttheclaim(Barrickv.Palmark,Inc.,9AD3d414[2004]Schwabv.A.J.
MartiniInc.,288AD2d654[2001],lvdenied97NY2d609[2002]).Accordingly,Iwouldmodifytheorderto
theextentofdenyingthataspectofthemotionofConsolidatedwhichsoughtsummaryjudgmentdismissing
plaintiffs'causeofactionunderLaborLaw240(1)andgrantingthataspectofplaintiffs'crossmotionwhich
soughtpartialsummaryjudgmentontheissueofliabilityonthatcauseofaction,andotherwiseaffirm.This
constitutesthedecisionandorderoftheSupremeCourt,AppellateDivision,FirstDepartment.Nardelli,J.P.,
Williams,Catterson,McGuire,Malone,JJ.
8357.InreD'AngeloJordan,petap,v.TheCityofNewYorkresresMauroGoldberg&LillingLLP,Great
Neck(MatthewW.Napartyofcounsel),forapMichaelA.Cardozo,CorporationCounsel,NewYork(Norman
Corenthalofcounsel),forresOrder,SupremeCourt,NewYorkCounty(MichaelD.Stallman,J.),entered
April5,2005,which,interalia,deniedpetitioner'smotionforanextensionoftimetoserveanordertoshow
causeexecutedbythecourtonFebruary16,2005,unanimouslyreversed,onthelawandthefacts,withoutcosts,
themotiongranted,petitionergrantedaonedayextension,nuncprotunc,toservetheordertoshowcauseand
servicedeemedcompleteasofFebruary18,2005,andthematterremandedtoSupremeCourtforconsideration
ofpetitioner'sapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaim.
OnNovember26,2003,petitionersustainedagunshotwoundtotheleftsideofhisface.Twoambulancecrews,
oneallegedlyfromSt.Luke'sHospitalandtheotherfromtheNewYorkCityFireDepartment,arrivedatthe
sceneoftheincident,545West158thStreetinManhattan.Inthecourseofadministeringfirstaidtopetitioner,
theparamedicsinsertedacathetertubeintopetitioner'surethra.Petitioner'smedicalrecordsindicatethathe
sustainedaurethrallacerationasaresultofthecatheterizationwhichrequiredsurgerytorepair.
OnFebruary14,2005,petitionerfiledanunsignedordertoshowcausewiththeNewYorkCountyClerk's
OfficethatsoughttonoticeanapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaimontheCity.Attachedwasan
affirmationbypetitioner'sattorneyandaverifiedproposednoticeofclaim,assertingthattheparamedicswho
insertedthecatheter,allegedlyCityemployees,performedthecatheterizationinanegligentmanner,thereby
causingpetitionertosustainpersonalinjuries.
TheordertoshowcausewassignedbySupremeCourtonFebruary16,2005andthereturndatewassetfor
February23,2005.SupremeCourtdirectedpetitionertoservetheCitybypersonalserviceonorbeforeFebruary
17,2005.PetitionereffectedpersonalserviceontheCitybutdidnotdosountilFebruary18,2005.Inits
4/14
6/21/2015
oppositiontotheapplication,theCityargued,amongotherthings,thattheproceedingshouldbedismissed
becausepetitionerfailedtoservetheCitybythedeadlinesetintheordertoshowcause.Thereturndateofthe
ordertoshowcausewasadjournedtoMarch16,2005.OnMarch7,2005,petitioner"crossmoved"foraone
dayextensionoftime(i.e.,untilFebruary18)toservetheordertoshowcauseontheCity.
Bytheorderappealedfrom,enteredApril5,2005,SupremeCourtdeniedthereliefsoughtbytheordertoshow
causeandthe"crossmotion."Thecourtwrote,inpertinentpart,that:"Anordertoshowcausemustbeservedas
directedbythejudgeintheordertoshowcause,oritisanullity....Althoughacourtmay,andthiscourt
routinelydoes,entertainanapplicationmadebeforethereturndatetoaltertheservicedateontheordertoshow
cause,nosuchapplicationwasmadehere.Rather,insteadofpresentinganotherordertoshowcause,ormakinga
timelyexparteapplicationforachangeoftheservicedateontheoriginalordertoshowcause,movantbrought
theinstant'crossmotion,'which,asthemovingparty,itisnotentitledtobring.The'crossmotion'was
purportedlyservedbymailonMarch7,2005andmadereturnableonMarch16,2005,thereturndateofthe
ordertoshowcause.Giventhemailing,forwhichthestatutoryfivedaysmustbeadded,servicewasshort....
"Moreover,thiscourtcannotsubstantivelygrantthereliefsoughtbythe'crossmotion':thecrossmotionwas
purportedlyreceivedaftertheexpirationoftheoneyearplus90daylimitationperiod,becausetheincident
allegedlyoccurredonNovember26,2003theordertoshowcause,havingbeenanullitybecauseofthe
improperservice,didnotstoptherunningofthestatuteoflimitations."
Onhisappealfromtheorder,petitionercontendsboththatSupremeCourterredindenyinghis"crossmotion"
foranextensionoftimetoservetheordertoshowcausepursuanttoCPLR306b,andthathisapplicationfor
leavetoservealatenoticeofclaimshouldhavebeengranted.Weagreewiththeformercontentionandremand
themattertoSupremeCourtforconsiderationofpetitioner'sapplication.
SupremeCourterroneouslyconcludedthattheordertoshowcausewasanullitybecausepetitionerdidnotserve
theCitybythedeadlinesetbythecourt.PetitionercommencedthisspecialproceedingonFebruary14,2005,
withintheoneyearand90daystatuteoflimitations(GeneralMunicipalLaw50e[5]50i[1]),1whenhefiled
theunsignedordertoshowcause,hisattorney'saffirmationandtheverifiedproposednoticeofclaim.The
affirmationandproposednoticeofclaimareproperlyviewedasthepetition(CPLR402)requiredtocommence
aspecialproceeding2(CPLR304seeMatterofPagev.Ceresia,265AD2d730[1999]seealsoCPLR3026).
Havingtimelycommencedthisspecialproceeding,theproceedingcouldnotbedeemedanullity,regardlessof
petitioner'sfailuretoservetheordertoshowcausewithinthetimeprescribedbySupremeCourt.3Anydefectin
theserviceoftheordertoshowcausemerelyraisedanissueregardingwhetherthecourthadpersonal
jurisdictionovertheCity.
Turningtopetitioner's"crossmotion"foranextensionoftimetoservetheordertoshowcause,the"cross
motion"wasinfactaseparatemotionthatwasservedbymailninedaysbeforetheMarch16,2005returndate.
WhilepetitionerdidnotprovidetheCitywith13daysnoticeoftheseparatemotion(CPLR2214[b]2103[b][2]
Siegel,PracticeCommentaries,McKinney'sConsLawsofNY,Book7B,C2214:8,at86[mainvol]see
Williamsv.Sahay,12AD3d366[2004]),wehavediscretiontooverlooklateservicewherethenonmovingparty
sustainsnoprejudice(seeSheehanv.Marshall,9AD3d403[2004]Glaszv.Glasz,173AD2d937[1991]).
Here,theseparatemotionwasdirectlyresponsivetotheCity'sopposition,wasservedninedaysbeforethereturn
dateandwasmadeinaccordancewithCPLR406("Motionsinaspecialproceeding,madebeforethetimeat
whichthepetitionisnoticedtobeheard,shallbenoticedtobeheardatthattime").Accordingly,noprejudice
wassustainedbytheCityandweoverlookthelateserviceoftheseparatemotion.Theerroneouscharacterization
ofthemotionasa"crossmotion"wasaselfinflicted,butbynomeansfatal,wound.Torequirepetitionerto
bringanewordertoshowcauseseekingthesamereliefwouldexaltformoversubstance.
Petitioner'smotionunderCPLR306b4foranextensionoftimetoservetheordertoshowcauseshouldhave
beengranted"intheinterestofjustice,"regardlessofwhetherpetitionerdemonstrated"goodcause,"i.e.,
establishedthatheutilizedreasonablediligenceinattemptingtimelytoservetheCity(seeLeaderv.Maroney,
Ponzini&Spencer,97NY2d95[2001])."Theinterestofjusticestandardrequiresacarefuljudicialanalysisof
5/14
6/21/2015
thefactualsettingofthecaseandabalancingofthecompetinginterestspresentedbytheparties....[T]hecourt
mayconsiderdiligence,orlackthereof,alongwithanyotherrelevantfactorinmakingitsdetermination,
includingexpirationoftheStatuteofLimitations,themeritoriousnatureofthecauseofaction,thelengthof
delayinservice,thepromptnessofaplaintiff'srequestfortheextensionoftime,andprejudicetodefendant"(id.
at105106).Petitioner,whowasgivenonlyonedaytoservetheordertoshowcause,serveditonedaylate,and
theCityfailedtodemonstratethatitwasprejudicedasaresultoftheminimaldelay.
Whilepetitioner'sseparatemotiontoextendthetimetoservetheordertoshowcauseshouldhavebeengranted,
wedonotpassjudgmentonthemeritsofhisapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaim.Whetherto
grantanapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaimrestswithinthesounddiscretionofSupremeCourt
(MatterofSemyonovav.NewYorkCityHous.Auth.,15AD3d181[2005]seeAliv.BunnyRealtyCorp.,253
AD2d356[1998]MatterofLopezv.NewYorkCityHous.Auth.,225AD2d492[1996]).Therefore,weremand
toSupremeCourttopermitittoexerciseitsdiscretionafterconsiderationofthefactorsandcircumstances
relevanttoanapplicationpursuanttoGeneralMunicipalLaw50e(5)(seeMatterofButlerv.TownofRamapo,
242AD2d570[1997]Sudarskyv.CityofNewYork,220AD2d353[1995]).
ThisconstitutesthedecisionandorderoftheSupremeCourt,AppellateDivision,FirstDepartment.
(1)OurrecentdecisioninCampoverdev.Liberty,LLC(__AD3d__,2007NYSlipOp01358[Feb15,20071st
Dept.])illustratesanotherunusualsetoffactswithinthatrationale.
(2)IrecognizethatourrecentdecisioninAhmedv.MomartDiscountStore,Ltd.(31AD3d307[2006])istothe
contraryandsupportsthemajority'sdetermination.Forthereasonsoutlinedabove,however,Ibelievethat
Ahmedwasincorrectlydecided.
(3)1Theoneyearand90daystatuteoflimitationswastolledwhilepetitioner'sapplicationtoservealatenotice
ofclaimwaspending(seeGiblinv.NassauCountyMed.Ctr.,61NY2d67[1984]).
(4)2"Intheabsenceofapendingaction,anapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaimmustbebrought
asaspecialproceeding"(MatterofSullivanv.LindenhurstUnionFreeSchoolDist.No.4,178AD2d603,604
[1991]seeSiegel,NYPrac.32,at38[4thed]seealsoHarrisv.NiagaraFallsBd.ofEduc.,6NY3d155
[2006]).
VIEWCOMMENTS(0)
ADDCOMMENT
MorefromtheALMNetwork
6/14
6/21/2015
Previous
Next
MenAreGeniuses.WomenJustWorkHard.
TheCareerist
TheAmLaw100,theEarlyNumbers:LathamGivesBobDellaSpectacularSendoff
TheAmLawDaily
ColumbiaAgainTopsTheGoToLawSchools
TheNationalLawJournal
LenovoSuedOverEmbedded'Spyware'
TheRecorder
DiversityandtheLaw:OldProblem,NewApproach
7/14
6/21/2015
PresidentialPowerPlayers:TexasLawyersShineinSuperPacRolesfor2016Election
TexasLawyer
JudgeRejectsDisneyDefensesin'Frozen'CopyrightCase
TheRecorder
TedOlsonSaysHeMaySkipSameSexMarriageArguments
LegalTimes
King&SpaldingSnagsPairofMcDermottLitigators
TheAmLawDaily
CruzHighlightsAntiObamaLitigationinAnnouncingWhiteHouseBid
LegalTimes
8/14
6/21/2015
HowtoGetaJobatApple
TheRecorder
Starbucks''RaceTogether'MayBrewUpLegalRisk
CorporateCounsel
FromLateraltoChairwomaninEightYearsatCrowell&Moring
USAttorneyRonaldMacheninDCAnnouncesResignation
LegalTimes
TheMalpracticeRiskofElectronicHealthRecords
TheLegalIntelligencer
9/14
6/21/2015
GrindrHeldNotLiableforMan'sLiaisonWithUnderageUser
NewJerseyLawJournal
SupremeCourtNixesSameDayAudioforHealthCareCase
LegalTimes
UberGoesonOffenseOver2014DataBreach
TheRecorder
Calif.ShinesSunlightonNewSickLeaveLaw
CorporateCounsel
ExBryanCavePartner'sSuicideMarsMissouriGubernatorialRace
TheAmLawDaily
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7wBD852sAoJ:www.newyorklawjournal.com/id%3D1202501910050/SanatassvConsolidatedInv
10/14
6/21/2015
MenAreGeniuses.WomenJustWorkHard.
TheCareerist
TheAmLaw100,theEarlyNumbers:LathamGivesBobDellaSpectacularSendoff
TheAmLawDaily
ColumbiaAgainTopsTheGoToLawSchools
LenovoSuedOverEmbedded'Spyware'
TheRecorder
DiversityandtheLaw:OldProblem,NewApproach
11/14
6/21/2015
PresidentialPowerPlayers:TexasLawyersShineinSuperPacRolesfor2016Election
TexasLawyer
JudgeRejectsDisneyDefensesin'Frozen'CopyrightCase
TheRecorder
TedOlsonSaysHeMaySkipSameSexMarriageArguments
LegalTimes
MoreFromNewYorkLawJournal
BoardReleasesResultsFromFebruaryBarExam
ForeclosuresApproachingTimeBarredStatus
NewYorkStatetoAdoptUniformBarExam
Skelos,SonChargedWithBribery,Extortion
12/14
6/21/2015
AboutNewYorkLawJournal
ContactUs
AdvertiseWithUs
PublicNotices
Sitemap
ConnectWithUs
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Google+
RSS
ALMPublications
AboutALM
13/14
6/21/2015
ProductSolutions
Events&Conferences
CLE
LawCatalog
Reprints
Lawjobs.com
MobileApps
CustomerSupport
ALMUserLicenseAgreement
PrivacyPolicy
Copyright2015.ALMMediaProperties,LLC.Allrightsreserved.
14/14

Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Company, Inc

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Company, Inc

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

6/21/2015

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen