This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No. 148 

Utica Mutual Insurance Company 

&c.,

 Appellant,

 v.

Style Management Associates 

Corp., et al.,

 Respondents,

et al.,

 Defendants.

Chris Christofides, for appellant.

Tracy L. Frankel, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed,

with costs, the motion of defendants Style Management Associates

Corp., Style Management Corp. and Yosi Sason for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint denied and the certified question

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 148

answered in the negative.

The issue on this appeal is whether defendants Style

Management Associates Corp., Style Management Corp. and Yosi

Sason (Style defendants or Style) are entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law. Viewing the facts in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party, triable issues of fact exist as

to the nature of the relationship between the moving defendants

and the unlicensed contractor involved in the renovation project

-- defendant Zak Baruch (see Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18

NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). Therefore, we hold that the Style

defendants are not entitled to summary judgment.

Specifically, Style's role in the home renovation

project was allegedly more than the mere listing of Style's name

on the building permit and the completion of some minor carpentry

work, as Sason testified. Baruch testified that he paid Style, a

licensed contractor, to obtain the building permit to cover the

entire renovation project, including the installation of wood

floors -- the same work that experts determined caused the fires

and resulting property damage. According to Baruch, he and Style

had engaged in similar arrangements on other projects. The

permit application, signed by the homeowner, identified Style as

the contractor and included floor installation in the work to be

performed. In addition to Style being named on the permit

application and permit, Style submitted its own certificate of

liability insurance for the project, contractor's license, and

- 2 -
- 3 - No. 148

workers' compensation information. Baruch further testified that

Sason demanded (and received) additional funds because the job

was bigger than Sason had anticipated. According to Baruch,

Sason threatened to withdraw the permit if Baruch did not supply

the additional funds, requiring Baruch to discontinue the work.

The conflicting accounts of Baruch and Sason, and the

documentary evidence submitted in conjunction with the building

permit, raise triable issues of fact as to the relationship

between the defendants, as well as Style's authority to control

the project. A trier of fact should be permitted to determine

whether Baruch and Style/Sason were partners, a joint venture, or

in an agency relationship such that the Style defendants would be

liable for the damage that occurred as a result of the flooring

work.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order reversed, with costs, motion of defendants Style Management

Associates Corp., Style Management Corp. and Yosi Sason for

summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied and certified

question answered in the negative, in a memorandum. Chief Judge

DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and

Garcia concur.

Decided October 27, 2016

- 3 -