Court Opinion

ID: 9947037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:09:04.104169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.742542
License: Public Domain

Velentzas v 685 First Realty Co. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30612(U)
                   February 27, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 161081/2018
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
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.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:17 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 161081/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                              PART                              47
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          161081/2018
             FOTIOS VELENTZAS,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         05/16/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         015
                                                 -v-
             685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC,EAST RIVER REALTY
             COMPANY LLC,SOLOW REALTY & DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             COMPANY LLC,SECOND AVE. SOLOW DEVELOPMENT
             CORP.,                                                                                      MOTION

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

             685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC, SOLOW REALTY &                                                   Third-Party
             DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC, SECOND AVE. SOLOW                                               Index No. 595539/2021
             DEVELOPMENT CORP.

                                                          Plaintiffs,

                                                 -against-

             LIBERTY MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, PAR
             PLUMBING CO., INC.

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

             685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC                                                               Second Third-Party
                                                                                                      Index No. 595642/2021
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

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

             LIBERTY MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, LLC                                                         Third Third-Party
                                                                                                      Index No. 595642/2021
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             161081/2018 VELENTZAS, FOTIOS vs. 685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC                                          Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 015

                                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:17 PM                                                                INDEX NO. 161081/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

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

             SOLOW REALTY & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC,                                                   Fourth Third-Party
             SECOND AVE. SOLOW DEVELOPMENT CORP.                                                    Index No. 595642/2021

                                                         Plaintiffs,

                                                 -against-

             R & J CARPENTRY INC.

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 015) 545, 546, 547, 548,
            549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569,
            572, 613, 619, 625, 626, 627, 635, 636, 637, 640, 641, 642, 643, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684,
            685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 704, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711,
            712, 713, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720
            were read on this motion to/for                                                  JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                 .

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                     Second Third-party defendant R & J Construction Corp. (“R & J”) moves for summary

            judgement dismissing the claims against it by defendants/ second third-party plaintiffs 685 First

            Realty Company LLC, Solow Realty & Development Company LLC, and Second Ave. Solow

            Development Corp. (collectively “the Developers”). The five causes of action the Developers

            assert against R & J are breach of contract, contractual indemnification, failure to procure

            insurance, common law indemnification, and contribution. R & J also moves to dismiss the

            cross-claims for contribution against it by first third-party defendant Par Plumbing Co. Inc, and

            second third-party defendant Site Safety Inc.

            Breach of Contract Claims

                     In support of dismissal of the first three causes of action for breach of contract,

            contractual indemnity, and failure to obtain insurance, R & J argues that there never was a

             161081/2018 VELENTZAS, FOTIOS vs. 685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC                                       Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 015

                                                                          2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:17 PM                                                             INDEX NO. 161081/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

            contract between it and the Developers. It is axiomatic that the existence of a contract is a

            necessary element for these first three claims.1

                      R & J alleges that a contract never existed relying on the deposition testimony by R & J

            project manager John Neville and Solow Realty & Development Company vice president

            Anthony Calicchio. Neville testifies that “There was a Letter of Intent and there was a document

            that went back and forth with a contract that was never officially signed” (NYSCEF Doc No 565

            at 14:19-22). R & J uses Calicchio’s testimony to authenticate a Letter of Intent which was

            signed by both parties and note that language in that letter states “From the date of the execution

            of this Letter of Intent, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith an agreement for the

            performance of the Work” (NYSCEF Doc 564). When a letter of intent includes language that

            indicates “that it will be replaced by a ‘contract’, [this] reflects the parties' intent not to be bound

            until an agreement establishing the proposed joint venture is reached” (Aksman v Xiongwei Ju,

            21 AD3d 260, 262 [1st Dept 2005]). Therefore, R & J has met their prima facie burden for

            dismissal on the first three claims as they have submitted admissible evidence that a contract did

            not exist between it and the Developers.

                      The Developers argue that they have raised an issue of triable fact regarding the existence

            of a contract by submitting a document they claim to be the Contractor Insurance and Indemnity

            Agreement (NYSCEF Doc No 642). “A private document offered to prove the existence of a

            valid contract cannot be admitted into evidence unless its authenticity and genuineness are first

            1
              “The elements of [a breach of contract claim] include the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance
            thereunder, the defendant's breach thereof, and resulting damages” (Harris v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 79 AD3d
            425, 426 [1st Dept 2010]). “Entitlement to full contractual indemnification requires a clear expression or
            implication, from the language and purpose of the agreement as well as the surrounding facts and circumstances, of
            an intention to indemnify” (Martins v Little 40 Worth Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2010]).
            Additionally, in order to succeed on a “claim for failure to procure insurance … [a party must] establish[] that a
            contract provision requiring the procurement of insurance was not complied with” (Benedetto v Hyatt Corp., 203
            AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2022]).
                161081/2018 VELENTZAS, FOTIOS vs. 685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC                                 Page 3 of 6
                Motion No. 015

                                                                 3 of 6
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:17 PM                                               INDEX NO. 161081/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

            properly established” (Fairlane Fin. Corp. v Greater Metro Agency, Inc., 109 AD3d 868, 870

            [2d Dept 2013]). “The authenticity of a document may be established by submitting the

            document with a certificate of acknowledgment” (id.). A document which is not properly

            authenticated is not admissible and therefore cannot be considered on a summary judgment

            motion (Clarke v Am. Truck and Trailer, Inc., 171 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2019]).

                   Here, the Developers failed to authenticate the document or the signature they allege was

            signed by John Neville. Therefore, the Developers have failed to rebut R & J’s prima facie

            showing that no contract existed between R & J and the Developers. Accordingly, R & J will be

            granted summary judgment on the Developers’ breach of contract, contractual indemnification,

            and failure to obtain insurance claims.

                   Common Law Indemnification

                   “Liability for indemnification may only be imposed against those parties (i.e.,

            indemnitors) who exercise actual supervision” (McCarthy v Turner Const., Inc., 17 NY3d 369,

            378 [2011]). A party establishes its prima facie entitlement to dismissal of a common law

            indemnification claim when it “demonstrat[es] that it did not actually direct or supervise the

            plaintiff's work” (Debennedetto v Chetrit, 190 AD3d 933, 938 [2d Dept 2021]). R & J has

            established that it did not exercise actual supervision over plaintiff and the Developers have not

            submitted any evidence to rebut R & J’s showing. Accordingly, R & J will be granted summary

            judgment on the Developer’s claim for common law indemnification.

                   Contribution

                   To succeed on a contribution claim a party must show a “breach of duty by the

            contributing party must have had a part in causing or augmenting the injury for which

            contribution is sought” (Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 71

             161081/2018 VELENTZAS, FOTIOS vs. 685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC                       Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 015

                                                          4 of 6
[* 4]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:17 PM                                               INDEX NO. 161081/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

            NY2d 599, 603 [1988]). A party meets “its prima facie burden of establishing … entitlement to

            judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that [it] did not perform any

            work … where the accident occurred, and did not create the allegedly defective condition which

            caused the plaintiff's injuries. (Sand v City of New York, 83 AD3d 923, 925 [2d Dept 2011]) R &

            J submitted evidence that shows they did not start working on the 23rd floor, where the accident

            occurred, until after the accident (NYSCEF Doc 565 at 48:2 – 50:25; NYSCEF Doc No 566).

            Therefore, R & J has established prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the contribution claims

            against it.

                    Neither the Developers, PAR Plumbing, nor Site Safety, have presented any evidence

            which creates a triable issue of fact to refute that R & J did not perform work on the 23rd floor

            prior to the accident occurring. Accordingly, the contribution claims and cross-claims against R

            & J must be dismissed.

                    Based on the foregoing, it is

                    ORDERED that R & J’s motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety and all

            claims and cross-claims against them are dismissed, with costs and disbursements to R & J as

            taxed by the Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor

            of R & J; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendants; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that all future papers

            filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further

             161081/2018 VELENTZAS, FOTIOS vs. 685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC                       Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 015

                                                          5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 04:17 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 161081/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

                    ORDERED that counsel for the moving party shall serve a copy of this order with notice

            of entry upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office, who are directed

            to mark the court’s records to reflect the change in the caption herein; and it is further

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

            Clerk’s Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

            Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-

            Filing” page on the court’s website)].

                    2/27/2024
                      DATE                                                          PAUL A. GOETZ, 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

             161081/2018 VELENTZAS, FOTIOS vs. 685 FIRST REALTY COMPANY LLC                          Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 015

                                                           6 of 6
[* 6]