253 East 62nd Street, LLC v. Moluka Enterprises, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

253 East 62nd Street, LLC v. Moluka Enterprises, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 4551, 151 A.D.3d 489, 56 N.Y.S.3d 314

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 8, 2017

Docket4201 651477/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4551 (253 East 62nd Street, LLC v. Moluka Enterprises, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

253 East 62nd Street, LLC v. Moluka Enterprises, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 4551, 151 A.D.3d 489, 56 N.Y.S.3d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered December 24, 2015, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants Douglas Elliman Property Management (Elliman) and Bellmarc Property Management Services (Bellmarc) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Bellmarc entered into a contract with codefendant, Moluka Enterprises, to manage certain of Moluka’s properties. By order of the New York City Department of Buildings, one of Moluka’s properties was demolished. Plaintiff owned the building adjacent to the demolished premises and claims that its building was damaged during the demolition process. Following the demolition, Bellmarc was acquired by Elliman.

*490 Bellmarc and Elliman established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they were not liable for any damage to plaintiff’s building because Bellmarc’s contract to manage the properties was with Moluka and thus, no duty was owed to plaintiff. It is well established that contractual obligations impose a duty only in favor of the prom-isee and intended third-party beneficiaries. Exceptions to this rule are where (1) the contracting party fails to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, thereby launching a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting parties’ duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely (see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). There is no evidence that any of the above exceptions apply to the circumstances presented.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered December 24, 2015, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants Douglas Elliman Property Management (Elliman) and Bellmarc Property Management Services (Bellmarc) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Bellmarc entered into a contract with codefendant, Moluka Enterprises, to manage certain of Moluka’s properties. By order of the New York City Department of Buildings, one of Moluka’s properties was demolished. Plaintiff owned the building adjacent to the demolished premises and claims that its building was damaged during the demolition process. Following the demolition, Bellmarc was acquired by Elliman.

*490 Bellmarc and Elliman established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they were not liable for any damage to plaintiff’s building because Bellmarc’s contract to manage the properties was with Moluka and thus, no duty was owed to plaintiff. It is well established that contractual obligations impose a duty only in favor of the prom-isee and intended third-party beneficiaries. Exceptions to this rule are where (1) the contracting party fails to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, thereby launching a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting parties’ duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely (see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). There is no evidence that any of the above exceptions apply to the circumstances presented.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4551, 151 A.D.3d 489, 56 N.Y.S.3d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/253-east-62nd-street-llc-v-moluka-enterprises-llc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack