Court Opinion

ID: 9962544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:30.069083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.386322
License: Public Domain

Board of Mgrs. of the 15 Union Sq. W. Condominium
             v BCRE 15 Union Sq. W. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31330(U)
                     April 16, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 162500/2015
                  Judge: Lyle E. Frank
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. 162500/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 399                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LYLE E. FRANK                                              PART                              11M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          162500/2015
             BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 UNION SQUARE
             WEST CONDOMINIUM,                                                                   MOTION DATE         11/16/2023

                                                         Plaintiff,                              MOTION SEQ. NO.         008

                                                 -v-
             BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC,MOSHE AZOGUI,
             ISSAC HERA, BCRE 15 USW HOLDINGS LLC,BCRE 15
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             USW SECOND LLC,BCRE 15 USW CORP, BCRE
             SERVICES LLC,BCS USA LLC,BRACK CAPITAL REAL                                                 MOTION
             ESTATE USA CORP,

                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC, MOSHE AZOGUI,                                                   Third-Party
             ISSAC HERA, BCRE 15 USW HOLDINGS LLC, BCRE 15                                            Index No. 595428/2023
             USW SECOND LLC, BCRE 15 USW CORP, BCRE SERVICES
             LLC, BCS USA LLC, BRACK CAPITAL REAL ESTATE USA
             CORP

                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             CARDRONA, INC., J&R GLASSWORKS, INC., RCI
             PLUMBING, CPN MECHANICAL, INC., L.E.A. ELECTRIC
             CORP., LIGHTING MANAGEMENT, INC., SAINT-GOBAIN
             GLASS EXPROVER NORTH AMERCA CORP. N/K/A SAINT-
             GOBAIN GLASS CORPORATION, ALLIED METAL
             ENTERPRISES, INC., BLUE JAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., A
             EAGLES, INC., DIRECTOR DOOR INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
             PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS, P.C., GEIGER
             ENGINEERING, MARINO, GERAZOUNIS & JAFFE
             ASSOCIATES, INC. A/K/A MG ENGINEERING, GILSANZ
             MURRAY STEFICEK, LLP, VICENTE WOLF ASSOCIATES,
             ODA ARCHITECTURE, ROBERT GERMAN, P.E., ENDLESS
             POOLS, NY LOFT KITCHENS & HOME INTERIORS,
             SPECIAL TREATMENT GC CORP., HI-I, LLC, SPRAY TECH
             CORPORATION, LONG ISLAND SWIMMING POOL
             SERVICE, JOMAR MECHANICAL, MIRAGE CONTRACTING
             CORP., NEW LINE STONE CO., INC., MC CONSTRUCTION
             CONSULTING, INC., CABRERA CONSTRUCTION,
             VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, JOHN DOES 1-
             10, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10

             162500/2015 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 vs. BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC                               Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 008

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 162500/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 399                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                                                          Defendant.
             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 261, 262, 263, 264,
            265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 278, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 296, 340
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      DISMISS                       .

            Background

                     The underlying action arises from the renovation of a luxury condominium. In 2015,

            Board of Managers of the 15 Union Square West Condominium (“15 Union Square West”) filed

            suit against BCRE 15 Union Square West LLC (“BCRE”), among other defendants. In 2023,

            BCRE commenced this Third-party action against several defendants including Perkins Eastman

            Architects P.C. (“Perkins Eastman”) for breach of contract, professional negligence, and

            contractual indemnification. Perkins Eastman now moves to dismiss BCRE’s amended

            complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7). BCRE opposes.

            Standard of Review

                     On a motion to dismiss the court “merely examines the adequacy of the pleadings.” The

            Court must “accept as true each and every allegation made by plaintiff and limit our inquiry to the

            legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s claim.” Davis v Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262, 268 (2014) (internal

            citations omitted).

                     Under CPLR 3211 (a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence

            submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law. Leon v.

            Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 (1994) (emphasis added). “[S]uch motion may be appropriately

            granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations.”

             162500/2015 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 vs. BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC                           Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 008

                                                                          2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 162500/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 399                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

            Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 (2002) (emphasis added). A paper will qualify

            as “documentary evidence” only if it satisfies the following criteria: (1) it is “unambiguous”; (2)

            it is of “undisputed authenticity”; and (3) its contents are “essentially undeniable”. VXI Lux Holdco

            S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 189, 193 (1st Dept. 2019). “[T]he documentary

            evidence, i.e., the affidavits and emails of North Shore and Inter-Reco personnel, do not qualify as

            ‘documentary evidence” for purposes of CPLR 3211 (a) (1).” United States Fire Ins. Co. v. North

            Shore Risk Mgt., 114 A.D.3d 408, 409 (1st Dept. 2014)

                    “In assessing a motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), however, a court may freely consider

            affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint and “the criterion is

            whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one” Leon

            v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88. “What the Court of Appeals has consistently said is that evidence

            in an affidavit used by a defendant to attack the sufficiency of a pleading “will seldom if ever

            warrant the relief [the defendant] seeks unless [such evidence] establish[es] conclusively that

            plaintiff has no cause of action”. Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

            115 A.D.3d 128, 134 [1st Dept. 2014] (emphasis added). “[T]he Court of Appeals has made clear

            that a defendant can submit evidence in support of the motion attacking a well-pleaded cognizable

            claim.” Id.

            Discussion

               I.         Breach of Contract

               Perkins Eastman moves to dismiss BCRE’s breach of contract claim on the basis that it is

            time barred under the parties’ contract. Perkins Eastman asserts that as the Temporary Certificate

             162500/2015 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 vs. BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC             Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 008

                                                          3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 162500/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 399                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

            of Occupancy was issued on December 9, 2008, the latest BCRE could bring suit under New

            York’s applicable statute of limitations was December 9, 2011.

               In relevant part, the parties’ architectural services agreement between the parties provides,

               § 2. 9. l .10 All legal causes of action between the parties to this Agreement shall accrue
               and any applicable statute of repose or limitation shall begin to run not later than the
               date of Substantial Completion. If the act or failure to act complained of occurs after
               the date of Substantial Completion, then the date of final completion shall be used but
               in no event shall any statute of repose or limitation begin to run any later than the date
               on which the Architect's services are completed or terminated.

               § 1.5.9 If the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within sixteen 16
               months of the date of Substantial Completion, through no fault of the Architect, extension of
               the Architect's services beyond thot time shall be compensated as provided in Section 1.5 .2.
               The date of Substantial Completion shall be the date upon which a Temporary
               Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the construction code enforcement agency having
               jurisdiction over the Project.

                   The Court finds that pursuant to the parties’ contract, BCRE’s breach of contract claim

            against Perkins Eastman is untimely. To the extent that BCRE’s breach of contract claim is based

            on acts or non-acts which are alleged to have occurred prior to or on the date the Temporary

            Certificate of Occupancy was issued, those claims are time barred pursuant to Sections 2.9.1.10

            and Section 1.5.9 of the contract. The applicable statute of limitations here is three years. CPLR

            214(6). The Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on December 9, 2008. As such,

            BCRE would have had to file suit by December 9, 2011. However, to the extent that any of

            plaintiff’s allegations accrued after the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the parties’ contract

            states the latest the statute of limitations could accrue would be the date Perkins Eastman

            completed its services. Here, Perkins Eastman stopped working on the project in October of

            2011. As such, pursuant to the contract, the latest date BCRE could have filed suit for its breach

            of contract claim was October 2014. As BCRE filed suit May 11, 2023, the suit is untimely.

             162500/2015 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 vs. BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC           Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 008

                                                          4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 162500/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 399                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                     In opposition, BCRE calculates the accrual date for the purposes of the statute of

            limitations should be July 18, 2019, the final completion date. While the Court agrees with

            Perkins Eastman that the latest accrual date for the statute of limitations is when Perkins Eastman

            ceased its work on the project, even arguendo if the accrual date is July 18, 2019, the suit is still

            untimely. BCRE contends that due to the 228-day extension granted by Governor Cuomo

            combined with its filing of notice of claim tolled the statute of limitations for a total of 348 days,

            thus its complaint timely. Here, the Court finds that CPLR 214, which tolls the state of

            limitations when filing a notice of claim, is inapplicable in the present case. CPLR 214 concerns

            claims for personal injury, wrongful death or property damage, or a third-party claim arising out

            of personal injury. As such, CPLR 214 is inapplicable to BCRE’s third party breach of contract

            claim. As such, even applying the 228-day extension by Governor Cuomo, the latest BCRE had

            to file its complaint was March 5, 2023. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, BCRE’s

            breach of contract claim is dismissed as untimely.

               II.      Professional Negligence

                     Next, Perkins Eastman contends BCRE’s professional negligence claim must be

            dismissed on the grounds that it is duplicative of the breach of contract claim. Perkins Eastman

            argues BCRE has failed to allege any duty independent of the contract has been violated. In

            opposition, BCRE argues that under New York law, an architect has legal duties independent of

            its contract and the damages are not necessarily duplicative, therefore it has a basis to plead a

            separate cause of action. Moreover, BCRE argues that its professional negligence claims are

            based on allegations that Perkins Eastman’s work contained architectural deficiencies that arise

            from national or local policy, rather than specific provisions of the contract.

             162500/2015 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 vs. BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC              Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 008

                                                           5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 162500/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 399                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                      Here, the Court finds BCRE’s professional negligence claim duplicative of its breach of

            contract claim, therefore warranting dismissal. New York Courts have consistently recognized

            breach of contract claims are not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the

            contract itself has been violated. See Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382,

            389 (1987).

                      In certain circumstances, New York Courts have imposed an independent duty based on

            the nature of the services performed and the defendant's relationship with its customer. This duty

            may be found where the defendant performs a service affected with a significant public interest

            and where the failure to perform the service carefully and competently can have catastrophic

            consequences. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. v Samson Constr. Co., 30 N.Y.3d 704 (2018).

            However, absent this heightened element, where plaintiff is essentially seeking enforcement of

            the bargain, the action should proceed under a contract theory. Id. Here the Court finds BCRE’s

            professional negligence claim fails to comport with the limited circumstances where in the Court

            will impose a separate duty outside of the parties’ contract. As plead, BCRE’s professional

            negligence claim is duplicative of its breach of contract claim and is therefore dismissed.

               III.      Contractual Indemnification

                      Finally, Perkins Eastman moves to dismiss BCRE’s contractual indemnification claim. In

            opposition, BCRE contends that Perkins Eastman’s position that the accrual clause is applicable

            to indemnification claims that exist because of a third party asserting a claim, creates a period of

            limitation for such claims, that is unreasonably short, and in many cases, simply non-existent.

                      The Court finds this argument unavailing. While BCRE may be correct that the contract

            provisions create a likelihood that most indemnification claims will be time barred, New York

            Courts have repeatedly held that when sophisticated parties enter into a contract, the contract

             162500/2015 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 vs. BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC             Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 008

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 162500/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 399                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

            should be enforced according to its terms. 301 E. 60th St. LLC v. Competitive Solutions LLC, 217

            A.D.3d 79 (2023); see also Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 36 N.Y.3d 342 (2020). Here the

            Court finds that both parties to the contract are sophisticated and the contract terms are clear and

            unambiguous. As such, the Court finds pursuant to the explicit terms of the contract, BCRE’s

            contractual indemnification claims are time barred for the same reason its breach of contract

            claim is untimely.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUGED that Perkins Eastman’s motion to dismiss is granted; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly.

                    4/16/2024
                      DATE                                                          LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      X   GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             162500/2015 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 15 vs. BCRE 15 UNION SQUARE WEST LLC               Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 008

                                                           7 of 7
[* 7]