DFAWEAST, LLC v Friedland Props. Inc.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order granting partial summary judgment to DFAWEAST, LLC on claims arising from excavation-related damage to its adjoining building. The court upheld strict liability against the property owners, construction manager, and excavation contractor under New York City Building Code § BC 3309.4, but dismissed all claims and cross claims against United Drilling because its work was not a proximate cause of the damage. The court also granted DFAWEAST summary judgment on liability for breach-of-license-agreement claims concerning legal and engineering fees and unrepaired damage, while leaving damages and other alleged breaches for trial.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on liability because it established that excavation work proximately caused damage to its adjoining building, and those defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
2. United Drilling was entitled to summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross claims because it established prima facie that its work was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's damages, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
3. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability for the claims premised on paragraphs 9 and 16 of the license agreement, although the amount of damages remained for the trier of fact.
4. Summary judgment was properly denied because plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that direct claims between the parties to the license fell within paragraph 15, and triable issues remained concerning the reasonableness of the work, the property's condition before and after construction, and damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on strict liability under New York City Building Code § BC 3309.4 against the property owners, construction manager, excavation contractor, and United Drilling.
2. Whether defendants raised a triable issue of fact concerning proximate cause and the extent of damage from the excavation work.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment for breach of paragraphs 9 and 16 of the license agreement.
4. Whether summary judgment was properly denied on plaintiff's claims based on paragraphs 3, 8, and 15 of the license agreement.

Disposition

other