Court Opinion

ID: 9916506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:08:43.812154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:30.344419
License: Public Domain

Great N. Ins. Co. v Collosus Enters. Corp.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34580(U)
                   December 29, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153964/2020
               Judge: Dakota D. Ramseur
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. 153964/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 292                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

                              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                        NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. DAKOTA D. RAMSEUR                             PART                               34M
                                                                     Justice
                            -----------------------------X                     INDEX NO.           153964/2020
             GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O DORI
                                                                               MOTION DATE          05/02/2023
             LERNER AND SCOTT STREICHER, GREAT NORTHERN
             INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O ROBERT ANNIBALE AND
             EDESIO FERNANDES, GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE                        MOTION SEQ. NO.          005
             COMPANY A/S/O ERIC BIEBER AND ELIZABETH
             BIEBER, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
             A/S/O MICHAEL COOPERSMITH AND ELLYN T WESTON,
             CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O
             RICHARD DEMAR AND FANNY DEMAR, PACIFIC
             EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O STEPHEN
             C. GERARD AND JANE GERARD, GREAT NORTHERN
             INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O NORMAN GOLDBERG
             AND SUSAN GOLDBERG, BANKERS STANDARD
             INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O STEVEN HODES AND
             SETH HODES, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE
             COMPANY A/S/O ANNETTE ROSNER AND GARY
             SIEPSER, EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY INC. A/S/O
             ALLISON ROTHMAN AND JEFFREY LEVINE, GREAT
             NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O STEPHEN
             SARDINIA AND RYANN WEBSTER, EXECUTIVE RISK
             INDEMNITY INC. A/S/O PETER STEVENSON AND                            DECISION + ORDER ON
             MARILYN STEVENSON, BANKERS STANDARD                                        MOTION
             INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O ANDREW JOHN WILSON
             JENNIFER K WILSON, EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY
             INC. A/S/O CECELIA M BEIRNE, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS
             INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O CAROLYN WESTON,

                                                Plaintiff,

                                        - V -

             COLLOSUS ENTERPRISES CORP., 60 EAST 9TH
             STREET CONDOMINIUM, ROSE ASSOCIATES,
             INC.,UNIWAY PARTNERS, L.P., FAMIGLIA OF EIGHTH
             AVENUE INC.,MASTER FIRE SYSTEMS INC.,SPACE AIR
             CONDITIONING CORP., OMNI FIRE PROTECTION,

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

             OMNI FIRE PROTECTION                                                           Third-Party
                                                                                      Index No. 596037/2020
                                                Plaintiff,

                                         -against-

             153964/2020 GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE vs. COLLOSUS ENTERPRISES CORP.                    Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 005

[* 1]                                                        1 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 153964/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 292                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

             FAIK BERISHA, FEIM BERISHA, LUAN BERISHA, NICKOLAS
             PIROGOUSIS, FRANK PARLAMIS, INC., IDEAL FIRE
             SYSTEMS, INC.

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

             OMNI FIRE PROTECTION                                                    Second Third-Party
                                                                                   Index No. 595827/2023
                                               Plaintiff,

                                         -against-

             EMPIRE STATE REALTY TRUST, INC.

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 171, 172, 173, 174,
            175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,
            196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,215,216,217,
            218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,
            239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,256,257,258,259,260,261,
            262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277
            were read on this motion to/for                             JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                  Plaintiffs commenced this action for money damages for property damage against
           defendants stemming from a June 28, 2017, fire at the premises located at 60 East 9th Street,
           New York, New York (premises). Defendant, Space Air Conditioning Corp. (Space), now moves
           pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary dismissal of the complaint, crossclaims, and counterclaims.
           The motion is opposed. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

                   This action stems from a fire that occurred on the ground floor of the premises where two
           restaurants were located. The fire was investigated by Christopher Gioello (Gioello ), a fire
           marshal employed by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY). Gioello authored the FDNY' s
           related investigation report. Gioello inspected the location of the fire, Bully's Deli (Deli) and
           Famiglia of Eight Avenue, Inc. (Famiglia), the adjacent restaurant. Gioello concluded that the
           Deli and Famiglia's duct systems were improperly connected, that the Deli's duct extended 2 ft.
           vertically into a vertical air shaft, and that the remainder of the air shaft that extended to the roof
           above the 6th floor was not lined with duct as required. Gioello further concluded that the fire
           began when accumulated cooking grease located in the horizontal and vertical portions of the
           Deli's ventilation ducts ignited. Gioello further testified that the fire first ignited in built-up
           cooking grease in the first few feet of duct that extended vertically from the Deli, into the vertical
           shaft. Gioello further determined that once ignited, the fire traveled up the vertical shaft to the
           roof, igniting combustible building materials in the shaft and on the roof.

                   Sanford Walker (Walker), the owner of defendant Omni Fire Protection (Omni), testified
           that Omni would periodically clean the ducts at the Deli. Walker testified that he last cleaned the
           ducts prior to the fire was on June 7, 2017. Walker further stated that the ductwork in the Deli

            153964/2020 GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE vs. COLLOSUS ENTERPRISES CORP.                     Page 2 of 4
            Motion No. 005

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 153964/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 292                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

           did not have access panels every ten feet as required, and as a result, some portions of the
           ductwork was inaccessible to cleaning. Walker specifically testified that there were no access
           points through which he could view the vertical shaft to the exhaust fan. Walker further stated
           that the fan itself could not be moved and was only cleaned on the outside.

                    In support of its motion, Space submits the affidavit of its principal, Ioannis Soratos
           (Soratos), wherein he states that in 2000, defendant Frank Parlamis, Inc., a general contractor,
           hired Space to install a ventilation hood above the Deli's main grill or range, as well as 10 to 12
           feet of related duct. Soratos further states that Space did not conduct any work, inspections,
           repairs, maintenance, or hired any subcontractor to do so at the Deli since the installation of the
           hood and duct work. Soratos further states that Space never received notice of any dangerous or
           defective condition at Deli, and never received any complaints regarding its work at the Deli.

                   Space also submits the affidavit of its fire origin expert John Tinghitella (Tinghitella),
           wherein he states that the fire originated in the duct/dumb waiter shaft that extended from above
           the ceiling and that the first fuel ignited was the buildup of grease in the Deli to the roof.
           Tinghitella states the fire extended in the shaft to the roof, cockloft, and top floor apartments
           because the duct work did not extend to the roof but only extended approximately 18 inches into
           the dumb waiter shaft. Tinghitella further states that the fire did not breach the hood or horizontal
           duct work in the Deli and that the hood was not in the area of origin of the fire.

                   On a motion for summary judgment, the movant carries the initial burden of tendering
           admissible evidence sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a material issue of fact as a matter
           oflaw (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Once the movant meets its initial
           burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any
           issue of fact" (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980]). Summary judgment
           may be granted upon a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law,
           through admissible evidence sufficient to eliminate material issues of fact (CPLR 3212 [b];
           Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

                  "[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in
           favor of a third party" (Espinal v Melville Snow Contractors, Inc., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002];
           Church ex rel Smith v Callanan Indus, Inc., 99 NY2d 104, 111 [2002] ["Ordinarily, breach of a
           contractual obligation will not be sufficient in and of itself to impose tort liability to
           noncontracting third parties upon the promisor"]). The Court in Espinal articulated three
           exceptions to the rule:

                   "[A] party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have
                   assumed a duty of care--and thus be potentially liable in tort--to third persons: (1)
                   where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the
                   performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the
                   plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting
                   party's duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other
                   party's duty to maintain the premises safely."

            (id. at 140 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

             153964/2020 GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE vs. COLLOSUS ENTERPRISES CORP.                   Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 005

[* 3]                                                     3 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 153964/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 292                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/04/2024

                      At issue is whether Space launched an instrument of harm, or in other words,
            whether the work that Space performed at the premises created the conditions that lead to
            the fire.

                   The Court holds that Space's motion is premature. According to CPLR 3212(±),
            where a motion for summary judgment is filed, "[s]hould it appear from affidavits
            submitted in opposition to the motion that facts essential to justify opposition may exist
            but cannot then be stated, the court may deny the motion or may order a continuance to
            permit affidavits to be obtained or disclosure to be had and may make such other order as
            may be just." "In accordance with the statute, this Court has held that a motion for
            summary judgment should be denied as premature where the movant has yet to be
            deposed" (Figueroa v City of New York, 126 AD3d 438,439 [1st Dept 2015]; see
            Cannon v New York City Police Dep't, 104 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2013]; Wesolowski v St.
            Francis Hosp., 108 AD3d 525, 526 [1st Dept 2013]).

                    Here, paper discovery is incomplete, and Space's deposition has not yet taken
            place. Plaintiff and the co-defendants should be given the opportunity to fully explore
            Santos' statements at a deposition, including Santos statements concerning: where the
            duct Space installed or the existing duct that he connected into was located, or its
            proximity to the location in the duct where cooking grease accumulated and ignited;
            concerning the particulars of the "plans and specifications" Space "followed" when it
            performed its work at the premises; the documentary evidence to corroborate his claim
            that Space was not responsible for and never performed any maintenance or repairs to the
            Deli's duct system since 2000; and what Space's responsibilities were in relation to the
            other parties. Accordingly, the branch of the motion seeking summary judgment is denied
            as premature pursuant to CPLR 3212(±).

                    Accordingly, it is hereby,

                    ORDERED that Space Air Conditioning Corp.'s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212
            for summary dismissal of the compliant, crossclaims, and counterclaims is denied; and it
            is further

                                                                               ?) ·.
                   ORDERED that Space Air Conditioning Corp. shall serve a copy of this decision
            and order, with notice of entry, within ten (10) days of entry. _ _ __

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. -c

                    12/29/2023
                      DATE
                                                                                ~
                                                                               DAKOTA D. RAMSEUR, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED    GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

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

             153964/2020 GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE vs. COLLOSUS ENTERPRISES CORP.                  Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 005

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]