Case ID: ad3d_147/html/0425-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

De-Spec, Inc., Respondent, v Neil Sadick et al., Appellants.
    [45 NYS3d 796]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmation of plaintiff’s attorney, as well as the contract between the parties and related documents were properly submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion, regardless of whether the attorney had first-hand knowledge of the underlying facts (see Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092 [1985]; Furlender v Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP, 79 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2010]). Based on the plain language of the contract, plaintiff was only responsible for interior design work, and was not responsible for any work or service provided by any other contractor or subcontractor. Thus, plaintiff was not responsible for the alleged damages defendants incurred based on the improper demolition work performed by a nonparty contractor, hired by defendants to work at the renovation site (see Hernandez v Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc., 33 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007]; 306 E. 61st St. Corp. v 303 E. 60th St. Assoc., 184 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 1992]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.