Court Opinion

ID: 9929214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 22:07:08.405209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:04.142206
License: Public Domain

One PPW Owner, LLC v IBI Group
               2024 NY Slip Op 30330(U)
                    January 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 653862/2020
                  Judge: Andrea Masley
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. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             ONE PPW OWNER, LLC,                                                                    INDEX NO.          653862/2020

                                                          Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE             N/A
                                                - V -
                                                                                                                       012 013 014
             IBI GROUP,                                                                                                015 016 017
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.      018 019
                                                          Defendant.
                                                                                                     DECISION+ ORDER ON
                                                                                                           MOTION
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             IBI GROUP,                                                                                         Third-Party
                                                                                                          Index No. 595141/2021
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                  -against-

             KBE-NY, LLC, WORKSTEAD, LLC, DESIGN 2147, LTD., NEW
             AMSTERDAM DESIGN AND ASSOCAITES, LLC, DESIMONE
             CONSULTING ENGINEERING, D.P.C., CONTROL POINT
             ASSOCIATES, INC., LUCAS JACOBSON, INC. D/B/A LJI
             PROJECTS, WHITE BIRCH BUILDERS, INC., SURFACE
             DESIGN ARCHITECTS, PLLC, AJ LABELLE & PARTNERS,
             LLC, OAD-ARCHITECTURE, P.C., 2L ENGINEERING, D.P.C.,
             2LS CONSUL TING ENGINEERING, D.P.C., VOA, INC. D/B/A
             VANDEUSEN & ASSOCIATES, and SURETEC INSURANCE
             COMPANY,

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

            HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 349,350,351,352,
            353,354,355,395,396,397,398,399,400,401,402,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467
            were read on this motion to/for                                     REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 356, 357, 358, 359,
            360,361,362,363,409,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,468
            were read on this motion to/for                                     REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 365, 366,367,403,
            417,418,419,420,421,422,423,472
             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                                               Page 1 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 1]                                                                      1 of 10
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            were read on this motion to/for                   REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 015) 368,369,370,371,
            424,425,426,427,428,429,430
            were read on this motion to/for                   REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 016) 379, 380,381,405,
            431,432,433,434,435,436,437,469
            were read on this motion to/for                   REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 017) 382, 383, 384, 385,
            404,438,439,440,441,442,443,444,459,473,474,475,476,477
            were read on this motion to/for                   REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 386, 387, 388, 389,
            390,391,392,406,445,446,447,448,449,450,451,470,471
            were read on this motion to/for                   REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 019) 372, 373, 374, 375,
            376,377,378,407,408,452,453,454,455,456,457,458,478,479
            were read on this motion to/for                   REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

                   In motion sequence nos. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, and 019, third-party

            defendants Design 2147 Ltd., Workstead, LLC, AJ LaBelle & Partners, LLC, Surface

            Design Architects, PLLC, Lucas Jacobson, Inc. d/b/a LJI Projects, Control Point

            Associates, Inc., OAD-Architecture, P.C., DeSimone Consulting Engineering, D.P.C.,

            VOA, Inc. d/b/a Van Deusen & Associates, 2L Engineering, D.P.C., and 2LS Consulting

            Engineering, D.P.C. move, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), for leave to reargue their

            motions to dismiss the third-party complaint, to the extent this court in its January 13,

            2023 decision sustained the second cause of action for contribution. (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. [NYSCEF] 335, Decision and Order at 9 [mot. seq. nos. 001, 002, 003, 004, 006,

            007, 008, 009, 010].)

                   The third-party complaint was filed by defendant and third-party plaintiff IBI

            Group - Gruzen Samton Architects Engineers Landscape Architects a NY General

             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                         Page 2 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 2]                                                       2 of 10
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            Partnership (IBI). (NYSCEF 13, Third-Party Complaint.) IBl's contribution claim is

            predicated upon plaintiff One PPW Owner, LLC's complaint in the main action, which

            alleges breach of contract, professional malpractice, and unjust enrichment. (NYSCEF

            1, Complaint ,-I,J 28-47.) 1

            Legal Standard 2

                      A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) "shall be based upon

            matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the Court in

            determining the prior motion." (CPLR 2221 [d] [2].) However, "[r][eargument is not

            designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues

            previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted."

            (William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dept 1992] [citations

            omitted].) The movant bears the initial burden on a motion to reargue a prior decision

            pursuant to CPLR 2221. (Id.) On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of

            action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court accepts the facts as alleged in the

            complaint as true, accords the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference,

            1The relevant background of this action is set forth in this court's January 13, 2023
            decision. (NYSCEF 335, Decision and Order at 2-4.)

            2 Counsel whose affirmations include arguments (see e.g. NYSCEF 369, Alfred L.
            D'lsernia aff; NYSCEF 396, Larry C. Green aff; NYSCEF 410, Anthony D. Capasso aff)
            are reminded that affidavits "are reserved for a statement of the relevant facts; a
            statement of the relevant law and arguments belongs in a brief (i.e., a memorandum of
            law)." (Tripp & Co., Inc. v Bank of NY (Del), Inc., 28 Misc 3d 1211 [A], 2010 NY Slip Op
            51274[U], *6 [Sup Ct, NY County 2010], citing 22 NYCRR 202.8 [c].)
                653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                               Page 3 of 10
                Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 3]                                                          3 of 10
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            and determines only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.

            (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994].)

            Discussion

                   In sustaining the contribution claim, this court relied on Tower Bldg. Restoration,

            Inc. v 20 E. 9th St. Apt. Corp., 295 AD2d 229 [1st Dept 2002] and held that:

                   "'Although contribution under CPLR 1401 is not available where the damages
                   sought by the plaintiff are exclusively for breach of contract,' here there is also a
                   professional malpractice claim alleged against IBI in the main action, 'and
                   professionals may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reasonable
                   care, irrespective of their contractual duties.' (Tower Bldg. Restoration, Inc. v 20
                   E. 9th St. Apt. Corp., 295 AD2d 229, 229-230 [1st Dept 2002] [internal quotation
                   marks and citations omitted].). Thus, as the tort claim against IBI is still pending,
                   'the necessary predicate tort liability for a contribution action remains in the case.'
                   (Id. at 230 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].)"

            (NYSCEF 335, Decision and Order at 9.)

                   Third-party defendants argue that the Appellate Division, First Department in

            Children's Corner Learning Ctr. v A. Miranda Contr. Corp., 64 AD3d 318 [1st Dept

            2009]) clarified and distinguished the factual circumstances in Tower Building

            Restoration. They further argue that Children's Corner Learning Center is analogous to

            the present matter and warrants dismissal of the contribution claim because in the

            underlying action against IBI, plaintiff seeks purely economic loss damages.

                   Reargument is warranted. In Children's Corner Learning Center, the Appellate

            Division, First Department held that the common-law contribution claim against third-

            party defendants should have been dismissed because although the underlying

            complaint alleged breach of contract and professional malpractice, the damages sought

            were purely economic. (See id. at 323-24.) The court also reaffirmed that "the

            touchstone for purposes of whether one can seek contribution is not the nature of the

             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                   Page 4 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 4]                                                       4   of 10
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            claim in the underlying complaint but the measure of damages sought therein." (Id. at

            324 [citations omitted].) Children's Corner Learning Center rejected third-party plaintiff's

            reliance on Tower Building Restoration because:

                    "Although the decision in Tower Bldg. Restoration did not specify the nature of
                    the damages sought against the fourth-party plaintiff architect, a review of the
                    briefs does. They reveal that the third-party plaintiff there, a cooperative
                    apartment corporation, sought traditional tort damages from the architect in
                    connection with the architect's alleged damaging of the floor and roof of one of
                    the apartments in the building. In this case, plaintiff does not claim any damages
                    that seek traditional tort remediation."

            (Id.)

                    Based on the foregoing, the pendency of the professional malpractice claim in

            the main action is an insufficient predicate for IBl's contribution claim. (Id.; see also 34

            Prince Equities LLC v Marvel Architects PLLC, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 818, *17 [Sup Ct,

            NY County, Jan. 13, 2023, No. 650382/2021] ["Where ... the underlying claim seeks

            purely economic damages, common-law contribution is not available regardless of

            whether the third-party plaintiff is being sued for malpractice"].) The pivotal question is

            whether the damages sought in the main action are for injury to property or rather for

            purely economic loss. (Id.; CPLR 1401.)

                    Upon reargument, the contribution claim against moving third-party defendants is

            dismissed. The underlying complaint contains no allegations indicating that plaintiff's

            property was injured and does not seek damages for any such injury. ( See generally

            NYSCEF 1, Complaint.) Instead, plaintiff seeks to recover purely economic loss flowing

            from IBl's breach of an agreement for architectural services, breach of the standard of

            care in performing such architectural services, and unjust enrichment. (Id.    ,m 28-47.)
            Indeed, the damages sought in the professional malpractice claims resulted from

             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                   Page 5 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

                                                            5 of 10
[* 5]
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            alleged "delays caused by IBl's repeated breaches of duty and malpractice, defective

            plans and designs and the resulting need to perform additional work to correct the

            effects of such defects and breaches." (Id. ,I 42; see American Constr., Inc. v Cirocco &

            Ozzimo, Inc., 205 AD3d 568, 569 [1st Dept 2022] [contribution claim dismissed where

            only damages sought were cost of repairs and delays from contractually noncom pliant

            work]; 34 Prince Equities LLC, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 818, *17 [damages for "cost and

            expenses, including interest costs, professional services costs and contractor costs

            related to the repair work" were purely economic damages for which contribution is

            unavailable].) The mere fact that the breach of contract and professional malpractice

            claims seek different amounts of damages ($7.7 million and $6.5 million, respectively) is

            insufficient to indicate that the professional malpractice claim seeks to recover for injury

            to property.

                      IBl's attempt to proffer documents received in discovery, which IBI argues

            reference property damage, 3 is unavailing given that plaintiff does not seek to recover

            property damage in the complaint. Indeed, "the discovery rules are designed to support

            a properly pleaded cause of action and to prepare defenses to charges made not to

            discover whether a claim exists." (Park Ave. Realty, LLC v Schindler El. Corp., 129

            AD3d 598, 598 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) 4

                      Accordingly, it is

            3IBI refers to Workstead Issue Report (see e.g. NYSCEF 442) and Water damage
            Workstead Issue Report. (See e.g. NYSCEF 443.)

            4Design 2147 Ltd.'s request for an award of reasonable costs and fees incurred as a
            result of the need to file sur-reply is denied because the request is made in its sur-reply
            (NYSCEF 460) and not "upon motion in compliance with CPLR 2214 or 2215.'' (22
            NYCRR § 130-1.1 [d].)
                653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                               Page 6 of 10
                Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 6]                                                          6 of 10
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

                   ORDERED that motion sequence no. 012 of Design 2147 Ltd. for leave to

            reargue in part its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants Design 2147 Ltd.'s motion to dismiss the second

            cause of action of the third-party complaint; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against Design 2147 Ltd. is dismissed; and it is further

                   ORDERED that motion sequence no. 013 of Workstead, LLC for leave to reargue

            in part its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants Workstead, LLC's motion to dismiss the second

            cause of action of the third-party complaint; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against Workstead, LLC is dismissed; and it is further

                   ORDERED that motion sequence no. 014 of AJ LaBelle & Partners, LLC and

            Surface Design Architects, PLLC for leave to reargue in part their motion to dismiss the

            third-party complaint is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants AJ LaBelle & Partners, LLC and Surface Design

            Architects, PLLC's motion to dismiss the second cause of action of the third-party

            complaint; and it is further

             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                    Page 7 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 7]                                                       7   of 10
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

                      ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against AJ LaBelle & Partners, LLC and Surface Design Architects, PLLC is

            dismissed; and it is further

                      ORDERED that motion sequence no. 015 of Lucas Jacobson, Inc. d/b/a LJI

            Projects for leave to reargue in part its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is

            granted; and it is further

                      ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants Lucas Jacobson, Inc. d/b/a LJI Projects' motion to

            dismiss the second cause of action of the third-party complaint; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against Lucas Jacobson, Inc. d/b/a LJI Projects is dismissed; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that motion sequence no. 016 of Control Point Associates, Inc. for

            leave to reargue in part its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is granted; and it

            is further

                      ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants Control Point Associates, lnc.'s motion to dismiss

            the second cause of action of the third-party complaint; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against Control Point Associates, Inc. is dismissed; and it is further

                      ORDERED that motion sequence no. 017 of OAD-Architecture, P.C. for leave to

            reargue in part its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is granted; and it is further

             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                   Page 8 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 8]                                                       8   of 10
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

                   ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants OAD-Architecture, P.C.'s motion to dismiss the

            second cause of action of the third-party complaint; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against OAD-Architecture, P.C. is dismissed; and it is further

                   ORDERED that motion sequence no. 018 of DeSimone Consulting Engineering,

            D.P.C. and VOA, Inc. d/b/a Van Deusen & Associates for leave to reargue in part their

            motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants DeSimone Consulting Engineering, D.P.C. and

            VOA, Inc. d/b/a Van Deusen & Associates' motion to dismiss the second cause of action

            of the third-party complaint; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against DeSimone Consulting Engineering, D.P.C. and VOA, Inc. d/b/a Van

            Deusen & Associates is dismissed; and it is further

                   ORDERED that motion sequence no. 019 of 2L Engineering, D.P.C. and 2LS

            Consulting Engineering, D.P.C. for leave to reargue in part their motion to dismiss the

            third-party complaint is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that, upon reargument, the court vacates its prior order dated

            January 13, 2023, in part, and grants 2L Engineering, D.P.C. and 2LS Consulting

            Engineering, D.P.C.'s motion to dismiss the second cause of action of the third-party

            complaint; and it is further

             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                 Page 9 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 9]                                                       9   of 10
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 653862/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

                    ORDERED that the second cause of action of the third-party complaint for

            contribution against 2L Engineering, D.P.C. and 2LS Consulting Engineering, D.P.C. is

            dismissed.

                    1/29/2024
                      DATE                                                     ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED            □ DENIED   GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

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

             653862/2020 ONE PPW OWNER, LLC vs. 181 GROUP                                       Page 10 of 10
             Motion No. 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019

[* 10]                                                      10 of 10