Nadia Thiab, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. HHM (2011)

Submitted-February 17, 2011

DECISION & ORDER

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Hallen Construction Co., Inc., New York Paving, Inc., and Keyspan Energy Corporation appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated October 16, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendant HHM Associates, Inc., and the separate motion of the defendant Jimmy Mazza & Son Construction Corp., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

The appellants, who are defendants in this action, are not aggrieved by those portions of the order which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants HHM Associates, Inc. (hereinafter HHM), and Jimmy Mazza & Son Construction Corp. (hereinafter Jimmy Mazza) (see CPLR 5511;  Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144).   While a defendant may be aggrieved by an order dismissing its own cross claim or third-party claim against another defendant (see CPLR 5511;  Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144), the record as submitted to this Court does not disclose that the appellants asserted any cross claims or third-party claims against HHM or Jimmy Mazza.   Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety (see Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 166 A.D.2d 553;  Blake Realty v. Shiller, 87 A.D.2d 729).

COVELLO, J.P., BELEN, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court