Jones v Philip Kaplan Glass Works, Inc.
Decided on October 26, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J.,
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB , Justices.
Raquel Jones, Plaintiff-Respondent, NY County Clerk's No. 570381/05
Philip Kaplan Glass Works, Inc., and GWATHMEY SIEGEL AND ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Respondents,Calendar No. 05-237/238 -and- NEW JERSEY FIXTURES AND ED MASOLVSKY, Defendants, -and- STRUCTURE TONE, STRUCTURE TONE, INC. STRUCTURE TONE OF LONG ISLAND, INC., and JAMES MANSOUR, Ltd, Defendants-Appellants. X
Defendants Structure Tone, Inc., Structure Tone of Long Island, Inc. and James Mansour, Ltd. appeal from that portion of an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County, entered August 3, 2004 (Raul Cruz, J.), which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
PER CURIAM: [*2]
Order entered August 3, 2004 (Raul Cruz, J.), affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to renewal of the motions for summary judgment upon completion of discovery.
Plaintiff alleges that she was struck by falling glass from doors which had been improperly designed and/or installed during a renovation project in the Sony building. Plaintiff commenced this action against, inter alia, the general contractor and the "designer" of the renovation project, who were alleged to have created the defective condition. After partial discovery had been conducted, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they did not design and/or install the subject doors.
The motion court properly denied defendants' summary judgment motions. The documentary evidence submitted in opposition to the motions, including the contract between Sony and the general contractor as well as blueprints and schedules, was sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether defendants designed and/or installed defective doors thereby creating a dangerous condition (see Williams v. O & Y Concord 60 Broad Street Co., 304 AD2d 570 ). We have considered defendants' remaining claims and find them lacking in merit.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: October 26, 2005