Marbilla, LLC v 143/145 Lexington LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Marbilla, LLC v 143/145 Lexington LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 30280(U) January 29, 2013 Supreme Court, Nwe York County Docket Number: 117132/2006 Judge: Louis B. York 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 21712013 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTYPRESENT: PART - Index Number: 117132/2OO6 NlMx No. MARBILLA LLC vs. 1431145 LU(INGT0N LLC SEQUENCE NUMBER : 012 - u MOTION DAW W0TK)N 8EQ. NO. DISMISS The following papem, numbwed 1 to ,wn mad on thk motion M o t e Notice of MotionlOrderto Show Cause -Affidavits A ~ S W I I Affldavtta ~~ - ~xhibi~o -ExhibRa 1No(@). L IW S ) . Replying Affldavb Upon the foregoing papew, It Is p P Ps FILED rn 072513 9 N W YORK E GOUN'W CLERK'S OFFICE UI i G u . Dated: rlgel,, ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPRO~IA'TE:............ . ".MST~ON is: 1. CHECK ONE J.S.C. CASE DISPOSED GRANTED HDENIEO C G I 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: .................................. "",,~,.,",,,,,SETTLE ORDER DO NOT POST 0SUBMIT ORDER aFIDUCIARY APPWTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF W E STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK MARBILLA, LLC, Index No.: 117132/2006 Plaintiff, -against143/145 LEXINGTON LLC, GREEN CIRCLE CONSTRUCTION LLC,JOHN LAYTON, M&R EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., HOWARD ISHAPIRO & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C., JAMES SCHELD and MANUAL GLAS, Defendants. 143/145 LEXINGTON LLC, GREEN CIRCLE CONSTRUCTION LLC &d JOHN LAYTON, i Third-party Plaintiffs, -against- M&R EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., Third-party Defendant. "against- M&R EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., Second Third-party Defendant. 07 a3 1 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S?OFFICE [* 3] M&R EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION COW., Third Third-party Plaintiff, -against- VERSATILE CONSULTING & TESTING SERVICES INC., VERSATILE ENGINEERING PC and ROMAN SOROUO, PE Third Third-party Defendant. DELTA TESTING LABORATORIES INC and WARREN GEORGE mC., Fourth Third-party Defendant. M&R EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION COW., Fifth Third-party Plaintiff, -againstIRON HEAD ENTERPRISES LLC, Fifth Third-party Dehndant. 2 I [* 4] YORK,J.: Third party defendant Skyscraper Steel Corp.( Skyscraper Steel ) in two ~ C Z L ~joined J~S for discovery and trial, moves for an order, (1) pursuant to CPLR 8 1010,dismissing all thirdparty complaints and cross-claims atgainst it, or, alternatively (2) pursuant to CP $1010, to sever the third party actions against it. * BACKGROUND The two joined actions are for property damage related to construction of a 13-story residential building at 143/145 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York (the Premis&s ).Io the first action (index No. 117132/2006), Marbilla LLC,the fee owner of 141 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York (the Adjoining Property ) sued 143/145 Lekngton LLC, the fee owner of the Premises, the general contractor, engineers and other parties for negligence in demolition, excavation and other construction activities on the Premises which m d t e d in cracks at the Adjoining Property. In the secdnsaction (index No. 60383 1/08) 143/145 Lexington LLC sued M&R European Construction &rp.( M&R ), a demolition and excavatirm subcontractor for the project at the Premises far negligence in performance of its work, result construction costs, construction delays and damages to the Premises and the A The Marbilla and Lexington actions were jdined in 20 10 for discovery and trial. Six third*party actions were filed in the Marbilla action?and four thirdqwty actions in the Lexington action. The sixth third-party complaint in the Marbilla action and the third thirdpaty complaint in the Lexington action were both filed on May 1,2012, by M&R against Skyscraper Steel. Skyscraper Steel was brought to the construction project in J Sorokko, a professional engineer, identified problems in the excavation [* 5] performed by M&R at 143/14S Lexington Avenue. As the result the adjoining buildings started to settle, tipping towards the Premises. Mr. Sorokko recommended that M&R install temporary shoring between the buildings according to his drawings. Skyscraper Steel prepared shop drawings based on Somkko s recommendations and installed steel beams between the exterior walls of 141 and 147 Lexington Avenue. Wt the construction of each cwcrete floor at 1431145 ih Lexington, the corresponding beams for that floor were dismantled. On April 5,20 12, in h course of his deposition, Mr. Sorokko produced photographs e which he took in January 2006 showing Skyscraper Steel installing the beams. The engineer retained as an expert by M$R, Joseph Mills PE, having examined the pictures, dhred an opinion that Skyscraper Steel had significantly departed from shoring p l w drawn by Roman Sorokko. Based on this opinion, M&R impleaded Skyscraper Steel in the two joined actions. Skyscraper Steel moves to dismiss or sever these third-party actions agahst itself on the ground that discovev in the two main actions is almost finished, the note of issue has been filed, and it would be seriously prejudiced were it to go to trial without a opporhrnity to ren depose all the parties. If it exercised its right to full discovery, the litigation would extend for several years, thus prejudicing other parties as well. It objects to the use of Mr. Mills affidavit in M&Rs opposition to its motion since M&R had not disclosed its intent to retain him prior to the filing of the note of issue. DISCUSSION Courts have broad discretion in deciding a motion to dismiss without prejudice or to sever the third-party action, pursuant to CPLR § 1010. The relevant consideratibns for the court are whether : (1) the third-party action is based on the same issues of law and fact as the main action; (2) there were unreasonable delays in starting the third-party action;(3) plaintiff in the [* 6] main action is prejudiced by delays due to extended discovery; (4) prejudice to plaintiff in keeping the third party in the action is stronger than prejudice to defendant if the zhird party is removed. Nielsen v New Yorlc State Dormitorv Auth., 84 AD3d 519,520; 923 N.Y.S.2d 66 [lst Dept 201 13; Erbach Fin,Corn. v R a d Bank of CQ, 203 AD2d 80; 6 10 N.YS.2d 20 [1st Dept 19941. The two main actions and third-party actions are all related to the same facts - allegedly negligent construction at 143/145 Lexington Avenue resulting in property damage and economic loss to the owner of the premises and its neighbor. The involvement of numerous parties in the litigation (fifteen altogether) resulted from their involvement, in varying extent, in the construction project. When issues at trial concern apportionment of liability for alleged negligence among several parties, it is highly desirable to hold a joint trial, rather than a series of separate trials with overlapping parties, avoiding the waste of judicial resources and the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Rothstein v M i l l e w e Inn. Inc., 251 AD2d 154, 155; 674 N.Y.S.2d 346 [1st Dept 19981. Defendant in the main action, and third-party plaintiff, M&R, provided an explanation of why it did not start the third-party action against Skyscraper Steel mtil six years into the litigation of the Marbilla Action. M&R admits that it w s aware of Skyscraper Steel s role in the a construction project, but not of its potential liability. It is only wt the production of ih photographs by Mr. Sorokko, that it could allege negligence by the third-party defendant. Plaintiffs in both actions did not respond to the motion to dismiss or sever the proceedings against Skyscraper Steel. Had they been prejudiced by delays in starting the trial, they would have supported Skyscraper Steel s motion. The only party that claims prejudice is Skyscraper Steel itself. It has legitimate concerns that it has to join discovery at this late date - it 5 [* 7] could participate in depositians only starting in June 2012. Skyscraper Steel should have an opportunity to obtain additional documents not yet produced in discovery and to ask additional questions of parties already deposed. However it cannot repeat fuI1-scale depositions, as it proposes to do in its motion papers. It should have the same opportunity to complement the interrogation with questions relevant to defending its case, as it would have had had it been present at the original depositions. Skyscraper Steel contends that Joseph Mills affidavit should not be considered on this motion. In a recent case, the First Department endorsed the longestablished pre Second Department, which required that an expert opinion be rejected on a m o t h for stunmary judgment if a party failed to disclose its expert according to CPLR §3101(d). Garcia Q Citv of New York, 98 AD3d 857,951 N.Y.S.2d 2 [lst Dept 20121. In that case defendant submitted his demand for expert disclosures in 2004, plaintiff never responded to it, retained an expert in 2007 and presented his opinion in 201 0, after the note of issue. The expert s affidavit should not have been considered in light of plaintifh failure to identify the expert during pretrial discovery as required by defendants demand. (id.at 858-59). IDthis opinion, the First Depattment penalized a party that did not play fairly. The party could, and should have disclosed its G rior to filing the note ofissue. In the present c&e the third-party defendant w s brought inta the action a after the note of issue. There is no evidence in the record that Skyscraper Steel submitted demands for expert disclosures which were ignored by MkR. In ad&tion, the role of an expert opinion on the motion to dismiss ~f sever the third-party action is distinct from its role in supporting or opposing the motion for summary judgment. The affidavit of Joseph Mills PE affidavi fJoseph After this decision by the First Department, the Second Department interpreted its precedeits as allowing the trial caurts discretion to consider expert affidavit even when m expert was not disclosed to the opposing pruEy.See, Rivers v Birnbaum, 953 NYS2d 232 [2d Dept 20123 I [* 8] st Skyscraper Steel and presented supporting evidence. It demonstrated that the third-party action is closely related to the main action, and thus assisted this court. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Skyscraper Steel s motion to dismiss or sever the third-party action against it is denied; and it is further ORDERED that parties in the two joined actions shdX appear i Part 2, room 205,71 n Thomas Street on Jammy 30,2013, at 2 p.rn., for a status conference a d to schedule remaining discovery in the third-party actions. ENTER: J.S.C. .- 7
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.
