Torts · MBE-tested
In the Matter of City of New York et al., Respondents, v. Augustine Barry, Appellant
273 A.D.2d 380710 N.Y.S.2d 917·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2000·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of City of New York et al., Respondents, v Augustine Barry, Appellant.
[710 NYS2d 917]
In a proceeding pursuant to General City Law § 20 (22), inter alia, to direct Augustine Barry to permit the petitioners to enter his house to perform structural repairs so that work on a nearby construction project could resume, Augustine Barry appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), dated March 10, 1999, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 2104 to compel the petitioners to make further repairs to his house in accordance with a stipulation of settlement between the parties.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The stipulation of settlement between the parties only obligated the petitioners to restore Augustine Barry’s house to the condition it was in prior to the commencement of the petitioners’ nearby construction project. As a result, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to compel the petitioners to make further repairs pursuant to the stipulation until after resolution of all of the causation issues in a related tort action commenced by Barry against the petitioners (see, Villatoro v Talt, 269 AD2d 390; 288/98 W. End Tenants Corp. v Mosesson, 144 AD2d 305; Consolidated Rail Corp. v Industrial Scrap Processing Corp., 97 AD2d 532; see also, Ehrenpreis v Klein, 260 AD2d 532; Terranova v Secured Capital Corp., 250 AD2d 835). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.