Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury complaint and related cross-claims. The court determined that the scaffolding contractor established it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of the relevant subcontract. The opposing parties failed to present evidence raising a triable issue of fact or demonstrating that the motion was premature.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Arsenal Scaffolding, Inc. owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the subcontract.
- Whether 230 PAS SPE LLC raised a triable issue of fact to defeat Arsenal's summary judgment motion.
Holdings
- No. Arsenal did not owe a duty of care because the plaintiff was neither a party to the subcontract nor an intended beneficiary of it.
- No. 230 PAS SPE LLC failed to present any evidence that Arsenal could be liable under any Espinal exception, so summary judgment was proper.
Key quotations
“Arsenal established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross‑claims against it. Plaintiff was neither a party to the subcontract nor an intended beneficiary under the subcontract that obligated Arsenal to install sidewalk sheds at the location where the accident occurred. Therefore, Arsenal established prima facie that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]; Giovacco v. Graham, 213 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2023]).” (140)
“Defendant 230 PAS SPE LLC did not raise a triable issue of fact because it did not present any evidence to show that Arsenal could be found liable under any Espinal exception (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140).” (1120)
Factual background
Plaintiff Eduard Abramov was injured where sidewalk sheds were installed. He was not a party to the subcontract between Arsenal Scaffolding and the general contractor, nor an intended beneficiary of that subcontract, which required Arsenal to install the sheds. Defendants 230 PAS SPE LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank were also involved in the construction project.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County denied Arsenal Scaffolding's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Arsenal appealed; the Appellate Division reviewed the order and reversed, granting summary judgment in favor of Arsenal.