Court Opinion

ID: 9940675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 21:09:43.920311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:24.494065
License: Public Domain

Filicia Anstalt Vaduz, A Lichtenstein Co. v 11 E. 73rd
                        St. Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30455(U)
                    February 9, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 655017/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
   York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                               PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          655017/2022
             FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE             N/A
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                                 -v-
             11 EAST 73RD STREET CORPORATION,                                                         DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                            MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             11 EAST 73RD STREET CORPORATION                                                                   Third-Party
                                                                                                         Index No. 595365/2023
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             BARTLETT TREE EXPERTS, THE F.A BARTLETT TREE
             EXPERT COMPANY

                                                          Defendants.
             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
            93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 111, 129, 130, 131, 134
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      SUMMARY JUDGMENT                     .

                      Third-party defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party

            complaint and for sanctions is granted as described below.

            Background

                      This action relates to a dispute concerning a party wall between plaintiff and defendant.

            Defendant does not rely on the party wall for support; only plaintiff does. Defendants’ side of the

            wall is in its backyard’s courtyard. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has let ivy and other

            vegetation grow into the party wall and thereby contribute to the deterioration of the wall.

             655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD                                 Page 1 of 8
             STREET CORPORATION
             Motion No. 003

                                                                           1 of 8
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

                    In this motion, third-party defendants (collectively, “Bartlett”), who were hired to

            perform vegetation-related work on defendants’ property, move for summary judgment. They

            attach the affidavit of Mr. Erik Anderson, an arborist representative for Bartlett. Mr. Anderson

            observes that another worker, now deceased, handled this account until 2017 and that he has

            since handled specific requests from defendant regarding the pruning of the ivy (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 103, ¶¶ 3-6). He observes that “individuals affiliated with the Defendant instructed Bartlett

            not to prune, cut back, or remove any ivy on the party wall. Their instructions were clear, and

            therefore Bartlett removed ivy from the front façade and roof of plaintiff's building only at times

            from 2018 to present” (id. ¶ 5).

                    Mr. Anderson points to an invoice from 2018, accompanied by a photograph that he says

            shows defendant instructed Bartlett only to work on the east side of the building, which means

            from the front façade and roof of plaintiff’s building (id. ¶ 6; NYSCEF Doc. No. 90). He adds

            that in April 2022, the plaintiff (not the defendant) asked him to prepare a recommendation

            regarding the ivy on the party wall and concluded that “Pruning or cutting back of the ivy would

            be necessary to perform the masonry work” (id. ¶ 7). Mr. Anderson insists that defendant’s

            board president “complained about the price being too high” and “instructed that the Defendant

            only wanted the edges that spill over onto the top and the front of the plaintiff's building to be

            pruned” (id. ¶ 10). He insists that Bartlett completed the work as instructed by defendant in May

            2022.

                    Bartlett seeks summary judgment on the ground that it did not cause any damage and that

            it simply followed the instructions of its client, the defendant. It argues that defendant’s claims

            for contractual indemnity, common law indemnity, contribution and breach of contract all fail as

             655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD             Page 2 of 8
             STREET CORPORATION
             Motion No. 003

                                                           2 of 8
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

            a matter of law. Bartlett also demands reimbursement of its legal fees and costs on the ground

            that this third-party action is frivolous.

                    In opposition, defendant contends that Bartlett failed to meet its burden on a motion for

            summary judgment. It argues that Bartlett did not include a statement of facts in accordance with

            New York’s trial court rules and that Mr. Anderson could only offer facts about 2018 onward.

            Defendant also argues that there are issues of fact that preclude awarding Bartlett summary

            judgment. It argues that Bartlett owed a duty to defendant to prune the ivy on the party wall on

            at least seven occasions over a twenty-year period.

                    Defendant argues that Bartlett, as a tree expert, had a duty to report any observed damage

            on the party wall to defendant. It contends that if defendant is found liable, then a jury should

            decide the extent to which Bartlett is liable to indemnify defendant. Defendant withdrew its

            fourth cause of action for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance.

                    In reply, Bartlett insists that Mr. Anderson’s affidavit is its statement of facts and that the

            contract between Bartlett and defendant did not require it to observe and report any masonry

            issues to defendant.

            Discussion

                    To be entitled to the remedy of summary judgment, the moving party “must make a

            prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence

            to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York

            Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]). The failure to make such a prima

            facie showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of any opposing papers

            (id.). When deciding a summary judgment motion, the court views the alleged facts in the light

             655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD              Page 3 of 8
             STREET CORPORATION
             Motion No. 003

                                                           3 of 8
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

            most favorable to the non-moving party (Sosa v 46th St. Dev. LLC, 101 AD3d 490, 492 [1st Dept

            2012]).

                      Once a movant meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opponent, who must then

            produce sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (Zuckerman v City

            of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]). The court’s task in deciding a

            summary judgment motion is to determine whether there are bonafide issues of fact and not to

            delve into or resolve issues of credibility (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 505, 942

            NYS2d 13 [2012]). If the court is unsure whether a triable issue of fact exists, or can reasonably

            conclude that fact is arguable, the motion must be denied (Tronlone v Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec,

            Ltee, 297 AD2d 528, 528-29, 747 NYS2d 79 [1st Dept 2002], affd 99 NY2d 647, 760 NYS2d 96

            [2003]).

                      The Court grants the motion. Bartlett met its prima facie burden by submitting the

            affidavit of Mr. Anderson who contends that he simply followed the directions of the defendant

            when pruning the ivy and vegetation at the property. And defendant did not raise an issue of fact

            in opposition. In fact, defendant did not attach anything from someone with personal knowledge

            to contradict Mr. Anderson’s account of the pruning services requested of Bartlett or those

            Bartlett provided. Therefore, Mr. Anderson’s affidavit is unrebutted. Defendants’ failure to

            provide an affidavit in opposition also highlights the issues with defendant’s theories of recovery

            against Bartlett.

                       Mr. Anderson made clear that although he recommended a more invasive pruning in

            2022, including ivy and vines on the party wall, he was told by defendant that this was too

            expensive. Bartlett attached an email between Mr. Anderson and the defendant’s board president

            in which the board president states that “The price is high. Also we only want the edges that spill

             655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD           Page 4 of 8
             STREET CORPORATION
             Motion No. 003

                                                           4 of 8
[* 4]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

            over onto the top and front of the building to be pruned. We have no intension [sic] of reducing

            this vine from the base. Barlett [sic] needs to look at our request again and reprice. The edges

            only to be pruned. I also want to be present when the work is scheduled. Bartlett will be working

            for us not our neighbors” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 93 at 2). This shows that defendant directed the

            work, expressly limited the scope of work and Bartlett merely followed these instructions.

                   It is unclear from these papers how Bartlett, who were hired to trim vegetation in

            accordance with specific instructions, could be responsible for the damages arising from the

            purportedly deteriorating party wall which they were not hired to fully trim. Defendant did not

            attach anything to show that Bartlett, who are not engineers, had a duty to observe cracks in the

            wall and opine about the effect of the vines/ivy on the wall. Bartlett was hired to do some

            apparently limited pruning and, at least on this record, it performed that pruning work in

            accordance with defendant’s instructions.

                   In fact, when plaintiff hired Bartlett to take a look at the overgrowth in early 2022,

            defendant made clear that it did not want that proposed scope of work done as evidenced by the

            email included above. In other words, from the unrebutted proof submitted on this motion,

            defendant never wanted Bartlett to do anything substantial to the subject wall – they paid Bartlett

            to remove around the edges, not to do a wholesale removal of the vines. Even after it became

            abundantly clear that plaintiff was complaining about the purported damage that the ivy was

            causing to the wall, defendant rejected Bartlett’s suggestion and took control over the work to be

            performed.

                   And defendant’s insistence that Mr. Anderson only has knowledge about events from

            2018 does not raise an issue of fact because defendant did not make any admissible factual

            arguments about Bartlett’s actions at any time. Bartlett said it doesn’t have the information

             655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD           Page 5 of 8
             STREET CORPORATION
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 8
[* 5]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

            because its employee died – but defendant, who hired and directed Bartlett’s scope of work,

            should have all the information and failed to present anything to contradict Bartlett’s proofs.

            And those proofs clearly show that defendant did not request or authorize Bartlett to remove the

            greenery which its neighbor claimed was destroying the party wall.

                   The Court fails to see how any theory of indemnification (either common law or

            contractual) or contribution could lie against Bartlett here. That defendant claims that it wants

            discovery is not a basis to deny the instant motion. Defendant did not highlight any contested

            factual issues as it did not include anything from someone with personal knowledge. Moreover,

            defendant possesses the key documents (the invoices and contracts) and could have offered its

            own witness affidavit to explain its theory of recovery against Bartlett. But defendant did not

            contradict anything.

                   To the extent that defendant argues that the motion should be denied because Bartlett

            failed to submit a statement of material facts, that claim is denied. This rule, 22 NYCRR 202.8-g,

            was amended to direct that “the court may direct that there shall be annexed to the notice of

            motion a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as

            to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried” ([emphasis added]).

            There is no requirement that this Court deny the motion for failure to submit a statement of

            material facts.

                   Considering Bartlett’s unrebutted proof here, the Court determines that the case against

            them is frivolous and that a hearing is necessary to determine the amount of sanctions (in the

            form of legal fees). 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1) provides that “conduct is frivolous if: it is

            completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an

            extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” To claim Bartlett is under a duty to clean

             655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD           Page 6 of 8
             STREET CORPORATION
             Motion No. 003

                                                           6 of 8
[* 6]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

            off the party wall or is somehow responsible for the damage to the party wall where defendant

            never asked it to do this work, specifically told Bartlett not to do this work, and that it would not

            pay Bartlett for that work, is just preposterous. Moreover, the fact that defendant did not

            withdraw its claims against Bartlett after receiving both a frivolous litigation letter (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 51) and the instant motion papers (particularly the emails in which defendant expressly

            limited the scope of Bartlett’s work) renders defendant’s attempt to recover against Bartlett as

            frivolous.

                   The evidence on this record shows that defendant hired a tree pruner to perform specific

            and limited work on its property but that it never directed Bartlett to remove the vegetation from

            the party wall. And yet, for some reason, defendant decided to bring Bartlett into this case for

            allegedly not removing greenery that, on this record, it was never hired or directed to remove.

            Even when Bartlett offered (after being hired by plaintiff) to do a more invasive pruning job,

            defendant refused to allow it.

                   A hearing is necessary to determine the amount of sanctions. It is axiomatic that a party

            should have a good faith basis to name a party in case—bringing a party into a lawsuit invites the

            accrual of significant costs, including legal fees. There was no legally supported reason to blame

            Bartlett for defendant’s decision to keep its greenery at the expense of its neighbor’s reliance on

            the party wall and there was no reason not to discontinue after Bartlett made the instant motion

            and laid bare its proof.

                   The hearing will take place on March 21, 2024 at 10 a.m. Bartlett should be prepared to

            ask for a specific amount of legal fees and may, if it wishes, request reimbursement for the legal

            fees incurred in the preparation for, and the appearance, at the hearing. Both defendant and

            Bartlett should upload any exhibits it plans to use at the hearing and exchange a witness list by

             655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD            Page 7 of 8
             STREET CORPORATION
             Motion No. 003

                                                           7 of 8
[* 7]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 655017/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 140                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

            March 14, 2024. Anything not uploaded or exchanged by this date may not be used at the

            sanctions hearing without good cause (such as for rebuttal purposes).

                       Accordingly, it is hereby

                       ORDERED that the motion by third-party defendants BARTLETT TREE EXPERTS,

            THE F.A BARTLETT TREE EXPERT COMPANY for summary judgment dismissing this case

            is granted, the third-party complaint is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment

            accordingly in favor of the third-party defendants and against the third-party plaintiff along with

            costs and disbursements upon presentation of proper papers therefor, and it is further

                       ORDERED that there shall be a hearing on March 21, 2024 to determine the amount of

            sanctions to be imposed against defendant for naming (and refusing to drop) the third-party

            defendant from this case and that the parties shall upload any exhibits to be used at the hearing as

            well as witness lists by March 14, 2024.

            .

                       2/9/2024                                                             $SIG$
                         DATE                                                       ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
                CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                      □
                                            GRANTED             DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

                APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                      □
                CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

                655017/2022 FILICIA ANSTALT VADUZ, A LICHTENSTEIN COMPANY vs. 11 EAST 73RD             Page 8 of 8
                STREET CORPORATION
                Motion No. 003

                                                              8 of 8
[* 8]