1 No. 84
532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc.,
Respondent,
v.
Finlandia Center, Inc., et al.,
Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
1 No. 851 No. 95
5th Avenue Chocolatiere, Ltd.,
Goldberg Weprin & Ustin, LLP,
et al.,
&c., Respondents,
Appellant, v.
v.
540 Acquisition Co., L.L.C.,
Tishman Construction Corp., et al.,
et al.,
Appellants.
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Case No. 84:
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 66
June 7, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Charles R. Strugatz, for appellants.
Steven B. Sarshik, for respondent. Case No. 85: Charles R. Strugatz,
for appellants.
Kenneth J. Ashman, for respondents. Case No. 95 David Jaroslawicz, for
SNIPPETS:
532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc., Respondent, v. Finlandia Center, Inc., et al.,
5th Avenue Chocolatiere, Ltd.,
&c., Respondents,
The novel issues raised by these appeals -- arising from construction-related disasters in
On December 7, 1997, a section of the south wall of 540 Madison Avenue, a 39-story office
The collapse occurred after a construction project, which included putting 94 holes for
New York City officials directed the closure of 15 heavily-trafficked blocks on Madison
In 532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Center, plaintiff operates a 24-hour
Defendants in both cases are Finlandia Center, 540 Acquisition Company and Manhattan Pacific
On defendants' motions in both cases, Supreme Court dismissed plaintiffs' negligence claims
Goldberg, Weprin & Ustin v Tishman Construction involves the July 21, 1998 collapse of a
Noting the enormity of the liability sought, including recovery by putative plaintiffs as
The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the Goldberg Weprin complaint, concluding that,
Corp.,, 83 NY2d 579, 586)).
Allowing the plaintiff to seek damages for purely economic loss, the New Jersey court
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
