From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kramer v. Cury

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 9, 2012
92 A.D.3d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-02-9

Joseph KRAMER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Virginia CURY, Defendant–Respondent,Marty Chan, et al., Defendants,V.S.R. Mechanical Corp., Defendant–Appellant.[And a Third Party Action].

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for appellant. The Dauti Law Firm, P.C., New York (Ylber Albert Dauti of counsel), for Joseph Kramer, respondent.


Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for appellant. The Dauti Law Firm, P.C., New York (Ylber Albert Dauti of counsel), for Joseph Kramer, respondent.

Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy Kazansky of counsel), for Virginia Cury, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered October 27, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant plaintiff V.S.R. Mechanical Corp. (V.S.R) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint as against V.S.R is not warranted in this action where plaintiff sustained injuries when he allegedly fell in a trench in the workshop of a boat motor repair shop. “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” ( Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 138, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002] ). However, “an exception exists where a contractor who undertakes to perform services pursuant to a contract negligently creates or exacerbates a dangerous condition by launching its own ‘force or instrument of harm’ ” ( Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC, 51 A.D.3d 469, 470, 857 N.Y.S.2d 124 [2008], quoting Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 168, 159 N.E. 896 [1928] ). Here, the record presents triable issues of fact as to whether V.S.R directed the digging of the subject trench, and did further digging in it once the trench was created ( see Grant v. Caprice Mgt. Corp., 43 A.D.3d 708, 841 N.Y.S.2d 555 [2007] ).

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, ACOSTA, RENWICK, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kramer v. Cury

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 9, 2012
92 A.D.3d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Kramer v. Cury

Case Details

Full title:Joseph KRAMER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Virginia CURY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 9, 2012

Citations

92 A.D.3d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 913
937 N.Y.S.2d 855

Citing Cases

Tuchman v. Deam Props. (US), LLC

At minimum, factual issues remain regarding whether Everest Realty created the conditions causing the October…

Medina v. Biro Mfg. Co.

In this case, the record presents triable issues of fact as to whether Bi-County launched a force or…