Court Opinion

ID: 9960249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 20:07:34.228032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:20.599465
License: Public Domain

Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. as Subrogee of 220 Fifth
            Ave. LLC v Addison PHS Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31231(U)
                     April 10, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157533/2021
                 Judge: David B. Cohen
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. 157533/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                                PART                              58
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          157533/2021
             PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY AS
             SUBROGEE OF 220 FIFTH AVENUE LLC,                                                      MOTION DATE         12/12/2023

                                                         Plaintiff,                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         002

                                                 -v-
             ADDISON PHS CORP., INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING
             BUSINESS AS ADDISON PLUMBING, ADDISON                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             PLUMBING LLC, NEWGRANGE CONSTRUCTION                                                           MOTION
             COMPANY, INC., TEAM ELECTRIC, INC.

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,
            98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 119, 120, 121, 122,
            123, 124, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147,
            148, 149, 150, 151, 152
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                      In this property subrogation action, defendant Team Electric, Inc. moves pursuant to

            CPLR 3212 for an order granting it summary judgment and dismissing all claims against it.

            Plaintiff and defendants New Grange Construction Company, Inc., Addison PHS Corp.,

            individually and d/b/a Addison Plumbing, and Addison Plumbing LLC oppose.

                      This action involves a claim for property damage and related loss arising from a leak that

            occurred on or about September 20, 2020 at 220 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, allegedly resulting

            from water discharge from a hot water heater due to improper installation of the heater and

            related equipment. It is also alleged that the damage would have been minimized if a water

            sensor or leak detection sensor had been installed with the heater or had worked properly

            (NYSCEF 95).

             157533/2021 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF 220                                    Page 1 of 4
             FIFTH AVENUE LLC vs. ADDISON PHS CORP., INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS
             ADDISON PLUMBING ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157533/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                    According to Team, Newgrange was the general contractor for the heater installation

            project, Addison Plumbing was the subcontractor, and Team was an electrical sub-subcontractor,

            hired pursuant to a Purchase Order between it and Newgrange. The Order and accompanying

            emails reflect that the scope of Team’s agreed-upon work was the electrical portion of the

            project, and Team was hired to furnish and install power for the hot water heaters (NYSCEF

            108).

                    Team was also required to follow the Plans for the project. The Conceptual Electrical

            Plans show that Team was to provide an electrical connection for a leak detection system, and to

            coordinate its location with the mechanical/plumbing contractor (NYSCEF 109). The

            Conceptual Plumbing Plans provide that the plumbing contractor was hired to install a water

            heater/leak detection and automatic water feed shut off system, and to coordinate the electrical

            requirements with the electrical contractor (NYSCEF 110).

                    By affidavit, Team’s electrical contractor and project manager states, based on his

            involvement of the project at issue in this action, that Team’s scope of work at the project did not

            include installation of a leak detection system (NYSCEF 107).

                    Based on the purchase order, the project’s plans, and its project manager’s affidavit,

            Team denies that it had a duty to install a leak detection system or that it installed one incorrectly

            (NYSCEF 95).

                    Plaintiff contends that triable issues remain as to the actual scope of the work performed

            by Team, and observes that Addison, in support of Addison’s pre-answer motion to dismiss,

            identified Team as the party responsible for installing the leak detection system (NYSCEF 119).

                    Newgrange argues that Team’s motion is premature, as no Team witness has been

            deposed yet, and as the project manager has less relevant information than the former foreman on

             157533/2021 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF 220                Page 2 of 4
             FIFTH AVENUE LLC vs. ADDISON PHS CORP., INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS
             ADDISON PLUMBING ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157533/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            the project, whom the other parties should have a chance to depose. Newgrange also observes

            that even if Team had no duty to install the leak system, it did have a duty to properly perform

            the electrical work associated with the system, and that there is a triable issue as to whether

            Team’s electrical work caused or contributed to the leak at issue (NYSCEF 134).

                    Finally, Addison maintains that the motion is premature, that Team’s evidence shows that

            it had a duty to install the leak detection system, and that Team’s denial of that duty establishes

            that triable issues remain (NYSCEF 131).

                    In reply, Team again denies that it was hired to install a leak detection system (NYSCEF

            140).

                    A party moving for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 “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” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,

            324 [1986]). The “facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”

            (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation

            omitted]).

                    Once the moving party has met this prima facie burden, the burden shifts to the non-

            moving party to furnish evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a material issue of fact

            (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324). The moving party’s “[f]ailure to make such prima facie showing

            requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (id.).

                    Here, Team’s evidence shows that it was hired to install, at a minimum, the electrical

            portion of the leak detection system. As the cause of the leak at issue has not yet been

            determined, and as it is alleged that part of the cause was the fact that leak detection system did

            not work as required, Team fails to demonstrate, prima facie, that it had no duty related to the

             157533/2021 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF 220               Page 3 of 4
             FIFTH AVENUE LLC vs. ADDISON PHS CORP., INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS
             ADDISON PLUMBING ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157533/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            leak detection system or that it did not breach its duty. Even if it met its burden, the other parties

            raise triable issues.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED, that the defendant Team Electric, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is

            denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED, that the parties appear for the previously-scheduled compliance conference

            on May 21, 2024 at 9:30 am, at 71 Thomas Street, New York, New York.

                    4/10/2024
                      DATE                                                          DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                  X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          X    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             157533/2021 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF 220                  Page 4 of 4
             FIFTH AVENUE LLC vs. ADDISON PHS CORP., INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS
             ADDISON PLUMBING ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                              4 of 4
[* 4]