From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mastroddi v. WDG Dutchess Associates Ltd. Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2008
52 A.D.3d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 3946.

June 17, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered August 16, 2007, which denied the motion of defendant North Atlantic Industrial Maintenance, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman, P.C., New York (Michael I. Josephs of counsel), for appellant.

Worby Groner Edelman, LLP, White Plains (Michael L. Taub of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.


North Atlantic, a snow removal contractor, contends that it owed plaintiff no duty of care because none of the three situations in which a contractual obligation may give rise to tort liability to third persons obtains here ( see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140). However, North Atlantic failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to any of these situations. It failed to produce the snow removal contract with the premises owner in support of the argument that its contractual obligation did not displace the owner's duty to safely maintain the premises ( see id. at 140-141; Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 643-644; Colbourn v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 304 AD2d 369), and it failed to establish that plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the continued performance of its snow removal duties ( see Espinal at 140). In addition, given defendant's silence with respect to the actual snow removal operations and the condition of the parking lot on the relevant date, defendant failed to meet its burden of whether it created or exacerbated a hazard ( see Prenderville v International Serv. Sys., Inc., 10 AD3d 334).

Accordingly, since North Atlantic failed to meet its burden on the motion for summary judgment, such motion was properly denied by the Supreme Court regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition papers ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Raynor-Brown v Garden City Plaza Assoc., 305 AD2d 572, 573-574 [2d Dept 2003]).


Summaries of

Mastroddi v. WDG Dutchess Associates Ltd. Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2008
52 A.D.3d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Mastroddi v. WDG Dutchess Associates Ltd. Partnership

Case Details

Full title:DIANA MASTRODDI, Respondent, v. WDG DUTCHESS ASSOCIATES LIMITED…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 17, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5543
861 N.Y.S.2d 11

Citing Cases

Villezcas v. 66 W. 84th St. Owners Corp.

Given the terms of the contract in the record and the consistent deposition testimony, the contract displaced…

Tuchman v. Deam Props. (US), LLC

To avoid liability for the leak due to Everest Realty's work, Everest Realty must demonstrate that its work…