From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grant v. Caprice Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 18, 2007
43 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Summary

finding issues of fact with respect to whether defendant's negligent installation of a window caused it to fall out if its track and injure plaintiff

Summary of this case from Prendergast v. Hobart Corporation

Opinion

No. 1496.

September 18, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered February 27, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendant Capris Capri Window Corp. (Capris) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Epstein, McDonald McCarthy, New York (Mark A. Collesano of counsel), for appellant.

Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Cannavo P.C., New York (Stephen C. Glasser of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.


The court properly denied Capris' cross motion for summary judgment in this action in which plaintiff seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when a window installed by Gapris fell out of its tracks and struck her in the head as she attempted to close it. Although a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third person ( see Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp., 76 NY2d 220, 226), an exception exists where a contractor who undertakes to perform services pursuant to a contract negligently creates or exacerbates a dangerous condition so as to have "launched a force or instrument of harm" ( Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 141-142, quoting Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., 247 NY 160, 168). The allegation that Capris negligently installed the window with defective parts causing it to fall out of its track falls within this exception ( see e.g. Bienaime v Reyer, 41 AD3d 400; Prenderville v International Serv. Sys., Inc., 10 AD3d 334, 336-338). Triable factual issues exist concerning what parts Capris replaced, whether the part was replaced by someone else or whether Capris altered or repaired the spring latch mechanism provided by the window manufacturer prior to or during installation, and whether the window was negligently installed.


Summaries of

Grant v. Caprice Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 18, 2007
43 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

finding issues of fact with respect to whether defendant's negligent installation of a window caused it to fall out if its track and injure plaintiff

Summary of this case from Prendergast v. Hobart Corporation

In Grant, the First Department stated that while "a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third person..., an exception exists where a contractor who undertakes to perform services pursuant to a contract negligently creates or exacerbates a dangerous condition so as to have "launched a force or instrument of harm" (Grant v Caprice Mgmt. Corp., 43 AD3d 708, 841 NYS2d 555 [2007] citing Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 141-142 [2002], quoting Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., 247 NY 160, 168 [1928]).

Summary of this case from Cayley Barrett Assocs. Ltd. v. IJ Peisers Sons Inc.
Case details for

Grant v. Caprice Management Corp.

Case Details

Full title:GINA GRANT, Respondent, v. CAPRICE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2007

Citations

43 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 6759
841 N.Y.S.2d 555

Citing Cases

Cayley Barrett Assocs. Ltd. v. IJ Peisers Sons Inc.

Plaintiff's reliance on Grant v Caprice Management Corp. (43 AD3d 708, 841 NYS2d 555 [1st Dept 2007]) for…

Yamchow v. 32-42 Broadway Owner, LLC

In opposition, the plaintiff, who relies on the same submissions as Eagle, as well as the affidavit of her…