HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PLAINTIFF APPELLANT v. APPEAL NO (2011)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. VILLAGE OF HERKIMER, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT, AND COUNTY OF HERKIMER, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

CA 10–00573

Decided: May 06, 2011

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, SCONIERS, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

ROBERT J. MALONE, COUNTY ATTORNEY, HERKIMER (LORRAINE H. LEWANDROWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. KERNAN AND KERNAN, P.C., UTICA (MICHAEL H. STEPHENS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. LONGSTREET & BERRY, LLP, SYRACUSE (MICHAEL LONGSTREET OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the appeal by defendant County of Herkimer from that part of the judgment denying its motion for summary judgment is unanimously dismissed (see Loafin' Tree Rest. v. Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 A.D.2d 985) and the judgment is modified on the law by denying the motion of defendant Village of Herkimer in its entirety, reinstating the complaint against that defendant and reinstating the cross claims of defendant County of Herkimer and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Herkimer County Indus. Dev. Agency v Village of Herkimer ( [appeal No. 2] _ AD3d _ [May 6, 2011] ).

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network