Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Company, Inc

6/21/2015 Sanatassv.ConsolidatedInvestingCompany,Inc.|NewYorkLawJournal

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7wBD852sAoJ:www.newyorklawjournal.com/id%3D1202501910050/SanatassvConsolidatedInve 1/14

ThisisGoogle'scacheofhttp://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202501910050/SanatassvConsolidatedInvestingCompanyInc.ItisasnapshotofthepageasitappearedonMay6,201514:00:24GMT.Thecurrentpagecouldhavechangedinthemeantime.Learnmore

Fullversion Textonlyversion Viewsource

Tip:Toquicklyfindyoursearchtermonthispage,pressCtrl+ForF(Mac)andusethefindbar.

SECTIONS

SearchSubscribeSignIn

HomeNewsExpertColumnsDecisionsJudges&CourtsYourPracticeClassifieds&PublicNoticesLegalMarketplaceTheNewspaper



Sanatassv.ConsolidatedInvestingCompany,Inc.

March22,2007|0Comments

share

shareonlinkedinFacebookshareontwittershareongoogle+

ShareWithEmailRECIPIENT,SEPARATEMULTIPLEADDRESSESWITHCOMMASAddacomment...

Send

Thankyouforsharing!

Yourarticlewassuccessfullysharedwiththecontactsyouprovided.

printreprints

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,insofarasappealedfromaslimitedbythebriefs,grantedthemotionoftheConsolidatedInvestingCompanydefendantsforsummaryjudgmentdismissingplaintiff'scausesofactionbasedonLaborLaw240(1)and241(6),dismissedthecomplaint,allcounterclaimsandthirdpartycrossclaimsagainstthem,anddeniedplaintiff'scrossmotionforsummaryjudgmentonsuchcauses,affirmed,withoutcosts.

ThemotioncourtproperlyfoundthatConsolidatedisnotliabletoplaintiffpursuanttotherelevantsectionsoftheLaborLawbecausetheairconditioninginstallationwasperformedwithoutitsconsentandinviolationofthelease,whichrequiredpriorwrittenapprovalforanyinstallations(Abbatiellov.LancasterStudioAssoc.,3NY3d



46,51[2004]Whelenv.WarwickVal.Civic&SocialClub,47NY2d970,971[1979]Ceballosv.Kaufman,249AD2d40[1998]Brownv.ChristopherSt.OwnersCorp.,211AD2d441,442[1995],affdonothergrounds87NY2d938[1996]).

Inadditiontotheforegoingreason,plaintiff'sclaimpursuanttoLaborLaw241(6)wasproperlydismissedinasmuchasIndustrialCode(12NYCRR)236.1(b),requiringhoistingequipmenttobemaintainedingoodrepairandproperoperatingconditionatalltimes,withsufficientinspectionstoinsuresuchmaintenance,isnotsufficientlyspecifictosupportastatutoryviolation(seeRossv.CurtisPalmerHydroElec.Co.,81NY2d494,503504[1993]seealsoRamosv.ChampionCombustion,Inc.,12AD3d227,228[2004]).

Wehaveconsideredplaintiffs'otherargumentsandfindthemwithoutmerit.

AllconcurexceptSweenyandMcGuire,JJ.whodissentinamemorandumbyMcGuire,J.asfollows:

McGUIRE,J.(dissenting)PlaintiffChristopherSanatass,anemployeeofanonpartycontractor,wasinstallingairconditioningunitsandperformingductworkinabuildingownedbydefendantConsolidatedInvestingCompany(Consolidated).TheworkwasbeingperformedonafloorleasedbydefendantChromaCopy(Chroma),asubsidiaryofthirdpartydefendantC2Media(collectively,thelessees).TheleaseprohibitedthelesseesfrommakinganychangestothedemisedpremiseswithoutthepriorconsentofConsolidated.NeitherofthelesseesobtainedConsolidated'sconsentfortheworkperformedbySanatassandhiscoworkers.Sanatasssustainedpersonalinjurieswhenanindustrialairconditioningunitheandacoworkerwereattemptingtoinstallintheceilingfellwhilebeinghoisted.Sanatass,andhiswifederivatively,commencedthisactionagainst,amongothers,ConsolidatedandChroma,assertingcausesofactionunderLaborLaw240(1)and241(6).ConsolidatedassertedacrossclaimagainstChromaforindemnificationandimpleadedC2Mediaseekingindemnificationfromit.SupremeCourtgrantedthoseaspectsofConsolidated'smotionthatsoughtsummaryjudgmentdismissingthecomplaintandallotherclaimsasassertedagainstit,anddeniedplaintiffs'crossmotionforpartialsummaryjudgmentontheissueofliabilityunderbothLaborLaw240(1)and241(6).Thisappealbyplaintiffsensued.ThemajorityaffirmsSupremeCourt'sdismissalofthecomplaintasagainstConsolidated,reasoningthat"theairconditioninginstallationwasperformedwithout[Consolidated's]consentandinviolationofthelease,whichrequiredpriorwrittenapprovalforanyinstallations."BecauseIbelievethemajoritymisapprehendstheliabilityofanownerunderLaborLaw240(1),Irespectfullydissent.LaborLaw240(1)imposesliabilityon"allowners"andthedutyitimposes"toprovidesafeworkingconditionsisnondelegableregardlessofcontrol"(Gordonv.EasternRy.Supply,82NY2d555,559560[1993]).Rejectingthedefendant'sclaiminGordonthatitwasnotliablebecauseithadleasedthepremisesonwhichtheaccidentoccurredtoanotherentityandthatitneithercontractedfornorbenefittedfromtheworkperformedbytheplaintiff,theCourtstatedthatthefollowingprinciplewascontrolling:"Liability[underLaborLaw240(1)]restsuponthefactofownershipandwhether[theowner]hadcontractedfortheworkorbenefittedfromitarelegallyirrelevant"(id.at560seeColemanv.CityofNewYork,91NY2d821[1997]Celestinev.CityofNewYork,86AD2d592[1982],affd59NY2d938[1983]Mejiav.Moriello,286AD2d667[2001]Seemuellerv.CountyofErie,202AD2d1052[1994]).ThemajorityreliesuponAbbatiellov.LancasterStudioAssocs.(3NY3d46[2004])inwhichtheCourtconcludedthatanoutofpossessionownerwasnotliabletoacabletelevisionrepairmaninjuredontheowner'spremiseswhilerespondingtothecomplaintofatenantwhowasacabletelevisionsubscriber.TheCourtheldthattheoutofpossessionownercouldnotbedeemedan"owner"forthepurposesofLaborLaw240(1)because,underarticle11ofthePublicServicelaw,theownerwasrequiredtoprovidethecablerepairmanwithaccesstothepremises.Inthisregard,theCourtnotedthat:"[Theowner]ispowerlesstodeterminewhichcablecompanyisentitledtooperate,repairormaintainthecablefacilitiesonitsproperty,sincesuchdecisionlieswiththemunicipalitythefranchisor.TheCityofNewYorkgave[thecablecompany]thefranchise,andtherighttoinstallitscablefacilities.Thisincludedtherighttomaintainandserviceitsfacilitiesatthepremisesfreefrominterferenceafterinstallation"(id.at52[citationsomitted]).UnliketheownerinAbbatiello,ConsolidatedwasnotrequiredbylawtoprovideSanatasswithaccesstothepremises.Nor,ofcourse,wasConsolidatedlegally"powerless"todeterminewhatworkwasperformedonthepremises.Tothecontrary,thelesseeswererequiredtoobtainConsolidated'sconsentforany"changesinortothedemisedpremisesofanynature."Althoughthelessees'failuretoobtainConsolidated'sconsentmaybearonConsolidated'srightsundertheleasetoadefenseandindemnificationfromthelessees,neitherthatfailurenorConsolidated'slackofknowledgeoftheworkare



relevanttoConsolidated'sstatusasan"owner"forpurposesofLaborLaw240(1)(seegenerallyEngev.OntarioCountyAirportMgt.Co.,LLC,26AD3d896[2006]).AsAbbatiellomadeclear,thecommonelement"toallcasesimposingLaborLaw240(1)liabilityonanoutofpossessionowners...issomenexusbetweentheownerandtheworker"(3NY3dat51).TheverynexusrecognizedinAbbatiellotobesufficienttoimposeLaborLaw240(1)liabilityaleasebetweentheownerlessorandthelesseewhohiredtheplaintiffisthenexuspresentbetweenConsolidatedandSanatass(seeid.seealsoGordon,supra).Atbottom,theAbbatielloholdingisnarrowanditsrationaledoesnotapplyhere.1AsdidtheCourtofAppealsinColeman,weshould"declinetoexempt[Consolidated]whichisinfacttheownerfromtheplainwordandreachofthestatute,leavingthatfortheLegislatureifitsochooses"(91NY2dat823[citationsomitted]seeJoblonv.Solow,91NY2d457,465n2[1998]).2Consolidated'sremainingargumentswithrespecttoplaintiffs'LaborLaw240(1)causeofactioncanbedealtwithinshortorder.Sanatasswasengagedinthealterationofabuildingorstructure,i.e.,makingsignificantphysicalalterationstothepremises,withinthemeaningofLaborLaw240(1)(seeDankulichv.FelcharMfg.Corp.,247AD2d660[1998]seealsoJoblon,supraScallyv.RegionalIndus.Partnership,9AD3d865[2004]).Plaintiffs'evidencedemonstratedthatSanatasswasinjuredwhilehoistinga1500to2500poundairconditioningunitofftheground,whichheandacoworkerintendedtoinstallintheceilingabove.Thematerialliftsusedtohoisttheloadwereinadequate,andwhentheunitwasraisedapproximatelysevenfeetoffthefloor,oneofthemateriallifts"gaveway"andtheunitdroppedthreetofourfeetknockingSanatasstothegroundandnearlycrushinghim.Thus,Sanatasswasexposedtoanelevationrelatedhazarda"fallingobject"coveredbyLaborLaw240(1)(seeNarducciv.ManhassetBayAssoc.,96NY2d259[2001]).IagreewiththemajoritythatSupremeCourtcorrectlydismissedplaintiffs'causeofactionunderLaborLaw241(6)sincetheregulationuponwhichthiscauseofactionispremised,12NYCRR236.1(b),isnotsufficientlyspecifictosupporttheclaim(Barrickv.Palmark,Inc.,9AD3d414[2004]Schwabv.A.J.MartiniInc.,288AD2d654[2001],lvdenied97NY2d609[2002]).Accordingly,IwouldmodifytheordertotheextentofdenyingthataspectofthemotionofConsolidatedwhichsoughtsummaryjudgmentdismissingplaintiffs'causeofactionunderLaborLaw240(1)andgrantingthataspectofplaintiffs'crossmotionwhichsoughtpartialsummaryjudgmentontheissueofliabilityonthatcauseofaction,andotherwiseaffirm.ThisconstitutesthedecisionandorderoftheSupremeCourt,AppellateDivision,FirstDepartment.Nardelli,J.P.,Williams,Catterson,McGuire,Malone,JJ.

8357.InreD'AngeloJordan,petap,v.TheCityofNewYorkresresMauroGoldberg&LillingLLP,GreatNeck(MatthewW.Napartyofcounsel),forapMichaelA.Cardozo,CorporationCounsel,NewYork(NormanCorenthalofcounsel),forresOrder,SupremeCourt,NewYorkCounty(MichaelD.Stallman,J.),enteredApril5,2005,which,interalia,deniedpetitioner'smotionforanextensionoftimetoserveanordertoshowcauseexecutedbythecourtonFebruary16,2005,unanimouslyreversed,onthelawandthefacts,withoutcosts,themotiongranted,petitionergrantedaonedayextension,nuncprotunc,toservetheordertoshowcauseandservicedeemedcompleteasofFebruary18,2005,andthematterremandedtoSupremeCourtforconsiderationofpetitioner'sapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaim.

OnNovember26,2003,petitionersustainedagunshotwoundtotheleftsideofhisface.Twoambulancecrews,oneallegedlyfromSt.Luke'sHospitalandtheotherfromtheNewYorkCityFireDepartment,arrivedatthesceneoftheincident,545West158thStreetinManhattan.Inthecourseofadministeringfirstaidtopetitioner,theparamedicsinsertedacathetertubeintopetitioner'surethra.Petitioner'smedicalrecordsindicatethathesustainedaurethrallacerationasaresultofthecatheterizationwhichrequiredsurgerytorepair.

OnFebruary14,2005,petitionerfiledanunsignedordertoshowcausewiththeNewYorkCountyClerk'sOfficethatsoughttonoticeanapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaimontheCity.Attachedwasanaffirmationbypetitioner'sattorneyandaverifiedproposednoticeofclaim,assertingthattheparamedicswhoinsertedthecatheter,allegedlyCityemployees,performedthecatheterizationinanegligentmanner,therebycausingpetitionertosustainpersonalinjuries.

TheordertoshowcausewassignedbySupremeCourtonFebruary16,2005andthereturndatewassetforFebruary23,2005.SupremeCourtdirectedpetitionertoservetheCitybypersonalserviceonorbeforeFebruary17,2005.PetitionereffectedpersonalserviceontheCitybutdidnotdosountilFebruary18,2005.Inits



oppositiontotheapplication,theCityargued,amongotherthings,thattheproceedingshouldbedismissedbecausepetitionerfailedtoservetheCitybythedeadlinesetintheordertoshowcause.ThereturndateoftheordertoshowcausewasadjournedtoMarch16,2005.OnMarch7,2005,petitioner"crossmoved"foraonedayextensionoftime(i.e.,untilFebruary18)toservetheordertoshowcauseontheCity.

Bytheorderappealedfrom,enteredApril5,2005,SupremeCourtdeniedthereliefsoughtbytheordertoshowcauseandthe"crossmotion."Thecourtwrote,inpertinentpart,that:"Anordertoshowcausemustbeservedasdirectedbythejudgeintheordertoshowcause,oritisanullity....Althoughacourtmay,andthiscourtroutinelydoes,entertainanapplicationmadebeforethereturndatetoaltertheservicedateontheordertoshowcause,nosuchapplicationwasmadehere.Rather,insteadofpresentinganotherordertoshowcause,ormakingatimelyexparteapplicationforachangeoftheservicedateontheoriginalordertoshowcause,movantbroughttheinstant'crossmotion,'which,asthemovingparty,itisnotentitledtobring.The'crossmotion'waspurportedlyservedbymailonMarch7,2005andmadereturnableonMarch16,2005,thereturndateoftheordertoshowcause.Giventhemailing,forwhichthestatutoryfivedaysmustbeadded,servicewasshort....

"Moreover,thiscourtcannotsubstantivelygrantthereliefsoughtbythe'crossmotion':thecrossmotionwaspurportedlyreceivedaftertheexpirationoftheoneyearplus90daylimitationperiod,becausetheincidentallegedlyoccurredonNovember26,2003theordertoshowcause,havingbeenanullitybecauseoftheimproperservice,didnotstoptherunningofthestatuteoflimitations."

Onhisappealfromtheorder,petitionercontendsboththatSupremeCourterredindenyinghis"crossmotion"foranextensionoftimetoservetheordertoshowcausepursuanttoCPLR306b,andthathisapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaimshouldhavebeengranted.WeagreewiththeformercontentionandremandthemattertoSupremeCourtforconsiderationofpetitioner'sapplication.

SupremeCourterroneouslyconcludedthattheordertoshowcausewasanullitybecausepetitionerdidnotservetheCitybythedeadlinesetbythecourt.PetitionercommencedthisspecialproceedingonFebruary14,2005,withintheoneyearand90daystatuteoflimitations(GeneralMunicipalLaw50e[5]50i[1]),1whenhefiledtheunsignedordertoshowcause,hisattorney'saffirmationandtheverifiedproposednoticeofclaim.Theaffirmationandproposednoticeofclaimareproperlyviewedasthepetition(CPLR402)requiredtocommenceaspecialproceeding2(CPLR304seeMatterofPagev.Ceresia,265AD2d730[1999]seealsoCPLR3026).Havingtimelycommencedthisspecialproceeding,theproceedingcouldnotbedeemedanullity,regardlessofpetitioner'sfailuretoservetheordertoshowcausewithinthetimeprescribedbySupremeCourt.3AnydefectintheserviceoftheordertoshowcausemerelyraisedanissueregardingwhetherthecourthadpersonaljurisdictionovertheCity.

Turningtopetitioner's"crossmotion"foranextensionoftimetoservetheordertoshowcause,the"crossmotion"wasinfactaseparatemotionthatwasservedbymailninedaysbeforetheMarch16,2005returndate.WhilepetitionerdidnotprovidetheCitywith13daysnoticeoftheseparatemotion(CPLR2214[b]2103[b][2]Siegel,PracticeCommentaries,McKinney'sConsLawsofNY,Book7B,C2214:8,at86[mainvol]seeWilliamsv.Sahay,12AD3d366[2004]),wehavediscretiontooverlooklateservicewherethenonmovingpartysustainsnoprejudice(seeSheehanv.Marshall,9AD3d403[2004]Glaszv.Glasz,173AD2d937[1991]).Here,theseparatemotionwasdirectlyresponsivetotheCity'sopposition,wasservedninedaysbeforethereturndateandwasmadeinaccordancewithCPLR406("Motionsinaspecialproceeding,madebeforethetimeatwhichthepetitionisnoticedtobeheard,shallbenoticedtobeheardatthattime").Accordingly,noprejudicewassustainedbytheCityandweoverlookthelateserviceoftheseparatemotion.Theerroneouscharacterizationofthemotionasa"crossmotion"wasaselfinflicted,butbynomeansfatal,wound.Torequirepetitionertobringanewordertoshowcauseseekingthesamereliefwouldexaltformoversubstance.

Petitioner'smotionunderCPLR306b4foranextensionoftimetoservetheordertoshowcauseshouldhavebeengranted"intheinterestofjustice,"regardlessofwhetherpetitionerdemonstrated"goodcause,"i.e.,establishedthatheutilizedreasonablediligenceinattemptingtimelytoservetheCity(seeLeaderv.Maroney,Ponzini&Spencer,97NY2d95[2001])."Theinterestofjusticestandardrequiresacarefuljudicialanalysisof



thefactualsettingofthecaseandabalancingofthecompetinginterestspresentedbytheparties....[T]hecourtmayconsiderdiligence,orlackthereof,alongwithanyotherrelevantfactorinmakingitsdetermination,includingexpirationoftheStatuteofLimitations,themeritoriousnatureofthecauseofaction,thelengthofdelayinservice,thepromptnessofaplaintiff'srequestfortheextensionoftime,andprejudicetodefendant"(id.at105106).Petitioner,whowasgivenonlyonedaytoservetheordertoshowcause,serveditonedaylate,andtheCityfailedtodemonstratethatitwasprejudicedasaresultoftheminimaldelay.

Whilepetitioner'sseparatemotiontoextendthetimetoservetheordertoshowcauseshouldhavebeengranted,wedonotpassjudgmentonthemeritsofhisapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaim.WhethertograntanapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaimrestswithinthesounddiscretionofSupremeCourt(MatterofSemyonovav.NewYorkCityHous.Auth.,15AD3d181[2005]seeAliv.BunnyRealtyCorp.,253AD2d356[1998]MatterofLopezv.NewYorkCityHous.Auth.,225AD2d492[1996]).Therefore,weremandtoSupremeCourttopermitittoexerciseitsdiscretionafterconsiderationofthefactorsandcircumstancesrelevanttoanapplicationpursuanttoGeneralMunicipalLaw50e(5)(seeMatterofButlerv.TownofRamapo,242AD2d570[1997]Sudarskyv.CityofNewYork,220AD2d353[1995]).

ThisconstitutesthedecisionandorderoftheSupremeCourt,AppellateDivision,FirstDepartment.

(1)OurrecentdecisioninCampoverdev.Liberty,LLC(__AD3d__,2007NYSlipOp01358[Feb15,20071stDept.])illustratesanotherunusualsetoffactswithinthatrationale.

(2)IrecognizethatourrecentdecisioninAhmedv.MomartDiscountStore,Ltd.(31AD3d307[2006])istothecontraryandsupportsthemajority'sdetermination.Forthereasonsoutlinedabove,however,IbelievethatAhmedwasincorrectlydecided.

(3)1Theoneyearand90daystatuteoflimitationswastolledwhilepetitioner'sapplicationtoservealatenoticeofclaimwaspending(seeGiblinv.NassauCountyMed.Ctr.,61NY2d67[1984]).

(4)2"Intheabsenceofapendingaction,anapplicationforleavetoservealatenoticeofclaimmustbebroughtasaspecialproceeding"(MatterofSullivanv.LindenhurstUnionFreeSchoolDist.No.4,178AD2d603,604[1991]seeSiegel,NYPrac.32,at38[4thed]seealsoHarrisv.NiagaraFallsBd.ofEduc.,6NY3d155[2006]).

VIEWCOMMENTS(0)

ADDCOMMENT

MorefromtheALMNetwork



Previous Next

MenAreGeniuses.WomenJustWorkHard.

TheCareerist

TheAmLaw100,theEarlyNumbers:LathamGivesBobDellaSpectacularSendoff

TheAmLawDaily

ColumbiaAgainTopsTheGoToLawSchools

TheNationalLawJournal

LenovoSuedOverEmbedded'Spyware'

TheRecorder

DiversityandtheLaw:OldProblem,NewApproach




PresidentialPowerPlayers:TexasLawyersShineinSuperPacRolesfor2016Election

TexasLawyer

JudgeRejectsDisneyDefensesin'Frozen'CopyrightCase

TheRecorder

TedOlsonSaysHeMaySkipSameSexMarriageArguments

LegalTimes

King&SpaldingSnagsPairofMcDermottLitigators

TheAmLawDaily

CruzHighlightsAntiObamaLitigationinAnnouncingWhiteHouseBid

LegalTimes



HowtoGetaJobatApple

TheRecorder

Starbucks''RaceTogether'MayBrewUpLegalRisk

CorporateCounsel

FromLateraltoChairwomaninEightYearsatCrowell&Moring


USAttorneyRonaldMacheninDCAnnouncesResignation

LegalTimes

TheMalpracticeRiskofElectronicHealthRecords

TheLegalIntelligencer


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7wBD852sAoJ:www.newyorklawjournal.com/id%3D1202501910050/SanatassvConsolidatedInv 10/14

GrindrHeldNotLiableforMan'sLiaisonWithUnderageUser

NewJerseyLawJournal

SupremeCourtNixesSameDayAudioforHealthCareCase

LegalTimes

UberGoesonOffenseOver2014DataBreach

TheRecorder

Calif.ShinesSunlightonNewSickLeaveLaw

CorporateCounsel

ExBryanCavePartner'sSuicideMarsMissouriGubernatorialRace

TheAmLawDaily



MenAreGeniuses.WomenJustWorkHard.

TheCareerist

TheAmLaw100,theEarlyNumbers:LathamGivesBobDellaSpectacularSendoff

TheAmLawDaily

ColumbiaAgainTopsTheGoToLawSchools


LenovoSuedOverEmbedded'Spyware'

TheRecorder

DiversityandtheLaw:OldProblem,NewApproach




PresidentialPowerPlayers:TexasLawyersShineinSuperPacRolesfor2016Election

TexasLawyer

JudgeRejectsDisneyDefensesin'Frozen'CopyrightCase

TheRecorder

TedOlsonSaysHeMaySkipSameSexMarriageArguments

LegalTimes

MoreFromNewYorkLawJournal

BoardReleasesResultsFromFebruaryBarExamForeclosuresApproachingTimeBarredStatusNewYorkStatetoAdoptUniformBarExamSkelos,SonChargedWithBribery,Extortion



AboutNewYorkLawJournalContactUsAdvertiseWithUsPublicNoticesSitemap

ConnectWithUsFacebookLinkedInTwitterGoogle+RSS

ALMPublications

AboutALM



ProductSolutionsEvents&Conferences

CLELawCatalog

ReprintsLawjobs.com

MobileAppsCustomerSupportALMUserLicenseAgreement

PrivacyPolicy

Copyright2015.ALMMediaProperties,LLC.Allrightsreserved.

Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Company, Inc

Documents

Transcript of Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Company, Inc