Mercado v New Continent Realty LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Mercado v New Continent Realty LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 32039(U) July 23, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 100063/10 Judge: Joan M. Kenney Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ._ SCANNED ON 81312012 [* 1] PART PRESENT: Jus tic e The followlng papem, numbered I to 31 mm road on thls rnotlon to/fOj-Jj .' I Notice of MotioniOrder to Show Cause - Affidavits Anowering AMdavlts - Exhiblts 7 s h b hh 1 ? / - Exhlblta INo(d. -I b . ~- 9 IWd. 13- d 2 [No(s). JL/ opp5 Replylng Affidavits Upon the foregoing papers, It I ordered that this motion I s s f ' I O F B W LL I J.S.C. C " I . CHECK ONE:..................................................................... NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 CASE DISPOSED ........................... MOTIONIS: uGRANTED [Lj DENIED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: 00 NOT POST 0GRANTED I NPART DOTHER uSUBMIT ORDER 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY-OF NEW YORK: PART 8 - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -X- - - - - - - - - - ANGEL MERCRDO A N D L I L Y MERCADO, Plaintifts, -a ga j. n s t:NEW C O N T I N E N T HEALTY DECISION & ORDER I n d e x No. 10@@63/1@ LLC, Defendant. _______---____..-__l_ll_____l_-llll------- X NEW CONTINENT REALTY LLC, Third-Party P l a i n t i f f , - P a r t y Action -against- $ % '$ @-,.\ BEAUTIFUL MODERN WORLD, INC., A N D GEIGER ENGINEERING, P . C . , T h i r d - p a r t y Defenda ' t s . \+ 0% -++&G \6 .i"@ l _ _ l _ l _ _ _ _ _ _ l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Joan M. Kennoy, J.: '<...' In this action from ari.sing a'' p l a i n t,v-J,, v i \ + , (--< Angel Mcrcado's ' (plaintiff) fall down a staircase, t h i r d - p a t ' t y defendant Beautiful Modern World, Inc. ( B e a u t i f u l ) movcs f o r sumnary judgmont dismissing Lhe third-party complaint. B e a u t i f u l i s a company involved in i n t e r i o r design. Beautiful was h i r e d b y d e f ~ n d a n t / t h i r d - p a r t y p l a i n t i f f New Continent R e a l t y LLC ( N e w Continent.) to a i d i n the renovation of t w o apartments l o c a t e d a t 9 0 0 P a r k Avenue, described a s apartments 8A and 3A, to transform the two a p a r t m e n t s into a duplex ( t h e d u p l e x ) by, among other t h i n g s , installing a staircase between the two a p a r t , m e n t s . a New C o n t i n e n t i s company owned b y nonparties Camille Biderman-Roizen a n d J a q u e Roizen (together, On October- plaintiff, down 9, 2008, who reside i n t h e premises. after the reriovations were complete, a porter employed i n the 900 P a r k A v e n u e building, fell the duplex's injuries. I h e Hoi.zens), stairs w h i l e Plaintiff delivering claims that h i s f a l l groceries, WAS sustaining occasioned b y p o o r [* 3] l i g h t i n g in t h c s t a i r c a s e , and t h e lack ti ¬ a n y handrail. Plaintiff and h i s w i f e , Lily Mercado, bring chis action against New C o n t i n e n t , as t h e owner o f t h e premises, c l a i m i n g t h a t i t b r e a c h e d a d u t y t o plaintiff b y creating the a l l e g e d l y d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n s . Plaintiff h a s riot sued B e a u t . i f u 1 . New C o n t i n e n t b r i n g s this t h i r d - p a r t y a c t i o n a q a i n s t B e a u t i f u l , claiming that B e a u t i f u l designed the allegedly defective s t a i r c a s e , and s o , i s liable ¬or p l a i n t i f f ' s fall. N e w Continent s u e s t h i r d - p a r t y defendant Geiger E n g i n e e r i n g , P , C. ( G e i g e r ) a s t h e e n g i n e e r f o r t h e renovation p r o j e c t , w h i c h is , allegedly, equally 1 i a b l . e . G e i g e r a c t e d a s engineer o n thc project, p u r s u a n t to a w r i t t e n contract (Contract) b e t w e e n it and Beautiful ( C o n t r a c t , N o t i c e o f MoLion, E x . H), w h l c l i provided, among o t h e r t h i n g s , that Lhe .scope v f Geiger' s work would include " [s tructural c o n s u l t a t i o n a n d d e s i g n of t h e new opening a t the c o n c r e t e s l a b for t h e p r o p o s e d d u p l e x stairs" (id. ; ) " [ p ] r e p e r a t i o n a n d p l a n s for s u b m i s s i o n to t h e [ N e w York City Department of B u i l d i n g s 1 (DO/ " I ( i d . ) ; [fliling 'ALT TYPE 11' application with [UOS] to combine t h e two ( 2 ) apartments i n t o one ( 1 ) a n d o b t a i n i n g t h e requisite approvals d u r i n g t h e proposed structural w o r k (id. ) ; ( a s per " [ o ]nsite i n s p e c t i o n s ( i d . ) ; and " [ o l b t a i n i n g a sign-off letter from t h e completion. If plainliIf , I' [DOB] u p o n work Id, Strangely, staircase. requi,rement.s) [ DOB] no urie Beautiful. at any argues point that it alleges who owed duty no designed of care the to b e c a u s e n e i t h e r of Beautiful' s principals are licensed 2 [* 4] architects, and that B e a ~ i t , I f ' i i l had no obligation n o r a b i l i t y to " c o n t r o l , inspect, or assist w i t h the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the interior staircase a t jssue.'' Reply A f f . , 71 5 . Beautiful insists that it contracted with Geiger so t h a t Geiger c o u l d a c t a s t h e r c g i s t e r e c l engineer, a n d t h a t G e i g e r was i - n t e n d e d to be t h e only party t-o the construction qualified to p r e p a r o a n d file "siqned, stamped, DOB- approved structural, electrical, a n d architectural drawings." Id. Beautiful r e i t e r a t e s t h r o u q h o u t its paper:s t h a t . its principals never held themsclves o u t as qualified to do any of these t h i n g s . Exactly what Beautiful d i d do is never discussed. Geiger: first arques the that motion is premature, as no depositions, especially deposition of B e a u t i f u l , h a v e been conducted, w h i c h might shed some l i g h t on t h e various responsibilities of t h e parties. Secondly, addressing the f a c t s , Geiger points to language in the Contract in w h i c h it is giver1 responsibility related to t h e opening of the concrete slab for the "proposad duplex s t a i . r s " ( C o n t r a c t , a t 1 ) , p e r h a p s indicating t h a t there was already a p l a n in p l a c e f o r t h e d e s i g r i of the s t a i r s t h a t di.d not come Lrom G e i g e r . G e i g e r maintains t h a t "Gei.ger' s expertise, a s a st~ucturalengj.neez, was s o 1 e l . y n e c e s s a r y for t h e design or the floor slab o p e n i n g to ensure the s t r u c t u r a l s t a h i l j . t y of t h e slab." of Elaine C . G a n g e l , ¶ Opp. of Geiger, Aff. 7. Geiger also d i r e c t s t h e court's attention t o a letter w r i t t e n b y Beautiful t o t h e Roizens, dated Fcbruary 3, 2004, in w h i c h B e a u t i f u l r e l a t e s to t h e R o i z e r i s issues r e q a r d i n g t h e desi.gn a n d placement: of 3 [* 5] t h e staircase ( F e b r u a r y L e t t e r ) . Letter, Beautiful describes Gangel A f f . Geiger's role , Ex R . as In t h e F e b r u a r y deali.ng with the s t r u c t u r a l problems of b u i l d i n g t h e staircase a s planned, a n d t h e e x t r a c o s t t o t , h e Roizens a s a result I n t h e E ' e b r u a r y L e t t e r , Beautiful tel1.s the Hoizens t h a t l w ] e h a v e lost a b i t of time because o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l issues [ i n v o l v i n g t h e s t a i r c a s e ] , W w i l l do o u r b e s t e effort t o c o m p l e t ? a s e t of d r a w l n g s b y t h e w e e k of F e b r u a r y 23rd, a n d i s s u e it t o t h e G e n e r a l Contractors f o r b i d d i r i y p u r p o s e s . By e x p e r i e n c e , i t l o o k s t h a t we w i l l not be a b l e t o start demolition b e f n r e mid to e n d of March, p r o v i d i n g we a r c i n budget of course, Of course w e a r e a l r e a d y t a l k i n g t o c o n t r a c t o r s and s u p p l i e r s a n d s h o w i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y drawings t o "warm t h e m u p " . According Id. to Geiger, t.his letter provide3 evidence that B e a u t i f u l h a d a h a n d i n designinq, a n d p r e p a r i n g d r a w i n g s o f , the staircase. Geiger a l s o p o i n t s t o a l e t t e r w h i c h i t s e n t t o B e a u t i f u l i n January 2004 28, ( J a n u a r y L e t t e r ) ( G a n g e l Aff., Ex C ) , which waz c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s t r u c t u r a l problems regarding t h e placement of t h e concrete slab for t h e staircase. states that. " [ p l u r s u a n t t o you In t h e January L e t t e r , Geiger [sic] r e q u e s t , w e h a v e s t r u c t u r a l l y e v a l u a t e d the proposed location f o r t h e new stairs l e a d i n g from t.he 8 t h t o t h e 9 t h floor .." b u i l d i n g were p r o v i d e d , . Si.nc~ no s t r u c t u r a l drawings of e x i s t i n g w b a s e o u r opinion o n y o u r p l a n s e g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f this t y p e o f c o r i c r e t e structure . . . ." ti our Again, G e i g e r points t o t h e i n s i n u a t i o n in t h e J a n u a r y L e t t e r t h a t B e a u t i f u l had p l a n s i n p l a c e f o r t h e d e s i g n o f wou1.d be following. 4 t h e staircase, w h i c h G e i g e r . [* 6] Geiger .. also challenges Beautiful s claim that Beautiful's principals were not architects, a n d had no obligations with regard tu the d e s i g n of the s t - . a i r c a s e , c l - a i m i n g t h a t discovery should take placc as to this q u e s t i o n . G e i g e r directs t h e court Lo the website of P i e r o Manara (Mariara) I a Beautiful principal, w h i c h indicates that Manara studied "In Lerior Architecturc" a t the L' Ecole Camondo in Paris, wherc he was a g r a d u a t e . Gangel Aff., E x . D. Geigei- chimes in with s e v e r a l letters f r o m Beautiful, in which Beautiful's principals architects. seemingly admit to bei.ng project's the In a letter on B e a u t i f u l letterhead, l o c a t e d as an exhibit to t h e affidavit o f Amy Lynn Pludwin (Ex. F ) , Manara writes, t o a nonparty, "[fjirst l e t me i n t r o d u c e myself; my name is Piero Manarra and we are the Architects in charge of the renovation of Mr. a n d Mrs. R o i z e n Euryio [sic] a p a r t m e n t . ' ' Id. I n a second l e t t e r , Diane (Burgio), a r . o t h e r Beautiful principal, writes, "wc are t h e Architects ¬or Mr. and Mrs. Roizen, A p a r t m e n t s 6 A a n d 9 A . " G. I d dI Ex. This letter yoes on to say, " [ w ] c would l i k e to a d v i s e you t h a t we have r e c e i v e d approval from the NYC commence with w o r k Department of B u i l d i n g s to for the above m e n t i . o n e d a p a r t m e n t s . curr-cntly in t h e process of p u l . l i n g t h e r e q u i . r e d permits." W e are Id. " T h e proponent of a motion f u r - summary judgment must demonstr2t.e that there are no materiad issues of fact in dispute, a n d t h a t i t is entitled to judgment-. as a matter of l a w . " Dallas-Stephenson v Waisinan, 3 9 A D 3 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 (1" I k p t 2007), c i t i n g W i n e g r a d U n i v e r s i t y Medical C e n t e r , 64 NY2d 8 5 1 , 8 5 3 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . 5 v New York Upon p r o f t e r o f [* 7] evidence establishing a prima facie case by the movant, " t h e p a r t y opposing a for motion summary judgment bears the burden of in admissible form sufficient t o r e q u i r e a t r i a l of material q u e s t . i n n s of fact.I " People v G r a s s o , 50 'produc [ i n g ] evidentiary proof AD3d 535, 545 ( l g tDept 2000), q u o t i n g Zuckarman v C i t y of N e w Yosk, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980). If t h e r e is a n y d o u b t as to t h e e x i s t e n c e of a triable i s s u e of f a c r , summary judgment must be denied. E x t r u d e r s v T e p p o s , 46 N Y 2 d 2 2 3 Kotuba (1978); Gross v A m a l g a m a t e d H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , 2 3 8 A D % d 224 (1st Dept 2 0 0 2 ) . " T h e clcments o f common-law negligence a r e (1) a duty owed by the d e f e n d a n t t.0 t h e p l a j - n t i f f , (2) a breach of t h a t d u t y , and (3 a showing that t h e b r e a c h of that d u t y constituted a proximate cause of the injury." I n g r a s s i a v L i v i d i k o s , 54 A D 3 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 4 ( 2 d Oept 2008 . It is t h i s c o n r t ' s o b l i g a t i o n to inquire as to the existence of such a d u t y owed o n the p a r t U L Beautiful. Reauti fu1. r e i . t e r a t e s , as it itself admits, " a d nauseam" Yl I ? ) , t h a t the "CTUX" (Reply, of t h e matter: is t h a t its principals never " r c p r e s e n t e d themselves a s Registered A r c h i t e c t s " lega 1. ly pcrrni tted to f i l e appropriate p l a n s with the LlOB duty to p l a i n t i f f . (jd., ¶ 7 ) , and so have no However, assuming L h a t t h e staircave h a d design d e f e c t s , a n d a s s u m i n g t h a t these d e f c c t s c o n t r i b u t e d to plaintiff's accident, there is a factual question as to who designed tbe staircase, w h i c h i s not resolved with mere c v i d c n c e that: B e a u t i f u l was not t h e party responsible to f i l e p I a n s a n d get approvals from 6 [* 8] B e a u t i f u l h a s cited no law which would indicate t h a t t h e the DOB. receipt o f a p p r o v a l s for p l a r i v from t h e DOB is pxoof t h a t t h e r e a r e n o d e s i g n defects i n t h e p l a n s a p p r o v e d , a n d t h i s courL does n o t s e e h o w t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f Gei.ger i n t h e DUB approval context relieves Beautiful from designi.ng the argument that any responsibility it rniyht court allcgcd defects. This can only be liable it if for have actually rejects B e a u t i f u l ' s it was t.he project's reyi.cjtered a r c h i t e c t . B e a u t i f u l ' s reliance o n construction site accident c a s e s , Davis as v Lenox School Jaroszewicz v Faci.1itie.s 1985]), is misplaced, construction s i t e . (151 AD2d 230 Development C o r p . Plaintiff's [Ist Dept such 19891) dnd ( 1 1 5 A D 2 d 159 [ 3 d Dept accident did not o c c u r o n a Even i f c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e c a s e s were applicable, t h e s t a n d a r d for accidents c a u s e d by design defects a t a c o n s t r u c t i o n site is not a question o f notice. control, a s B e a u t i f u l argues, but of See S c h i c k v 2 1 Blydenburgh, L L C , 8 8 A D 3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 5 ( 2 d Dept 07 2011.) a n e g l i g e n c e ( clai,m on a construction s i t . e s t e m m i n g from a d e s i g n defect, a s opposed t o t h e means a n d methods employed at the site, .is s u p p o r t e d if t h e r e created t h e is prooi: that t h e d e f e n d a n t "either dangerous c o n d i t t o n t h a t . c a u s e d t h e a c c i d e n t or h a d a c t u a l or constructive notice o f t h e d a n g e r o u s q u o t a t i o n masks and citation omilted]) . condition [internal As Beautiful is alleged to have creaLed t h e d e s i g n of the s t a i r c a s e , notice is n o t a necessary clement of p l a i n t i f f ' s of negligence c l a i m . It f o l l o w s t h a t questions f a c t e x i s t a s t o w h e t h e r B e a u t i f u l . d e s i g n e d t h e staircase a n d 7 [* 9] w h e t h e r the design was defective. Geiger' s r o l e as licensed engineer will not relieve B e a u t i S u l of liability if it is shown that it was Beautiful's p l a n s which were conveyed to Geiger, a n d , through Geiger, t o t h e DOB. T h e r e f o r o , Beautiful cannot have summary Judgment ground that t h e r e is no question of fact as to w h e t h e r liability for t.he design of t h e s t a i r c a s e . argues that ther-e can be cause no of on t h e i.t has B e a u t i f u l secondly action against it for i n d e r n n i L i c a t i o n , because plaintiff i s not claiming that New Continent is vicariously liable for t h e accident. "Cornmon-law indemnification is predicated on 'vicarious liability without actual fault,' which necessitates that 'a p a r t y who has itself actually participated to some degree in t h e wrongdoing cannot receive the b e n e f i t of t h e doctrinc.'" E d g e M a n a g e m e n t C o n s u l t i n g , Irlc. v B l a n k , 25 AD3d 364, 367 (1st DepL 2 0 0 6 ) , quoting T r u m p V i l l a g e S e c t i o n 3 , I n c . v N e w Y o r k S t a t e H o u s i n g F i n a n c e Agency, Therefore, New Continent 3 0 7 A D 2 d 891, 0 9 5 may only recover (1st: Dept 2003). in common-law indemnification against Beautiful if N e w Continent's l i a b i l i t y , if any, i s vicarious. New C o n t i n e n t ' s alleged liability i s based on its status as owner of the d u p l e x , a n d t h e nbligatinns attendant t h e r e t o . J t is well established that "[t] tie pouseusor of real p r o p e r t y has a duty under thc common law to keep that property M i l e w s k i v W a s h i n g t o n Mutual, Inc., 8 8 A D 3 d 8 5 3 , r-easonably s a f e . " 854 ( 2 6 Dept. 2011), citing B a s s o v Miller, 40 N Y 2 d 2 3 3 , 241 (1976). The measure of the property owrier"s Liability is measured by whether that p a r t y created 8 [* 10] t h e dangerous condition or had actual ur constructive notice o f i t s existence. S e e S t r y k e r v D/Agostino S u p e r m a r k e t s I n c . , 8 8 AD3d 584, 584 ( 1 s t Dept 2011) ( d e f e n d a n C ' s burden on summary judgment i s to p r o v e t h a t it "neither c r e a t e d the alleged d a n g e r o u s condition nor had actual or constructive knowledge t h c r e o ¬ " ) . Therefore, if New Continent has a n y liability t o p l a i n t i f f s , it i s a c t u a l 1 L a b i . l . i t y in negligencc, based on its knowledge of t h e existence o f the a l l e g e d d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n of t h e staircase, a n d not 1 i a b i l i t . y which i s vicarious. A s a result, New Continent cannot seek indemnification from B e a u t i f u l if p l a i n t i f f s p r e v a i l against N P W Continent. This finding does n o t c a l l f o r the dismissal o f the e n t i r e t h i r d - p a r t . y s o m p l . a i n t a 3 a g a i n s t B e a u t i f u l , h o w e v e r , a s N e w Continent h a s a l s o alleged t h a t B e a u t i f u l i s l i a b l e t o it in c o n t r i b u t i o r i . "Contribution i nvolves an a p p o r t . i onment wrongdoers a r e in p a r i delicto. of responsibility where E a c h of t h e w r o n g d o e r s owes a duty to the injur-cd party, 2 n d i t is a f a c t question for t h e j u r y a s to t h e degree o f r e s p o n s i b j 1 . i t y r?ach wrongdoer m u s t bear for causing t h e injury." W e s t c h e s t c r C o u n t y v Welton B e c k e t A s s o c l a t e s , 102 A D 2 d 34, Contribution principles 46 (%d Dept 1984), a f f d 66 NY2d 6 4 2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) " r e f 1 e c t t h e important p o I i c y t h a t r e s p o n s i b i - 1 i t.y for damages to a n injured p e r s o n s h o u ' l d be b o r n e by t h o s e parties responsible for the i n j u r y , in p r o p o r - t i o n t o t h e i r respective d e g r e e s of fault [ j - n t e r n a l quotation m a r k s arid citation o m i t t e d ] , " B r u n e t t i v M u s a l l a i n , 59 A D 3 d 220, 227 (1st Dept 2009). As such, "contribution c a n be recovered from a pcrson whose fault contributed 9 to the happening of the [* 11] a c c i d e n t " e v e n if the "plaintiff did n o t sue [ t h a t p e r s o n ] directly." Mixon v T B V , Inc., 76 A D 3 d 144, 1 5 6 (2d Dept 2010). New Continent has p l e d a cause of action ill contri.bution a g a i n s t B e a u t i f u l , whose negligence in t h i s matter has not. b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d , and so, t h e third-party complairiL may continue on u n d e r t h i s theory, even t h o u g l i indemnification i s n o t available Di.scover-y, i n c l u d i n g deposit i n n s , shou 1 d c o n t i n u c . Accordingly, it i s ORDERED third-part.y Modern World, that t h e motion complaint b r o u y h t ¬or summary judgment dismissing t h e by third-party defendant Beautiful Inc. is denied; and it is f u r t h e r O R D E R E D that t h e parties pr-oceed t o m e d i a t i u n , Dated: J u l y 2 3 , 2012 ENTER : 10 forthwith.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.