Cornell v. 360 West 51st St. Realty, LLC

51 A.D.3d 469, 857 N.Y.S.2d 124
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 6, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 469 (Cornell v. 360 West 51st St. Realty, 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
Cornell v. 360 West 51st St. Realty, LLC, 51 A.D.3d 469, 857 N.Y.S.2d 124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered August 23, 2007, which denied the motion by third-party defendant Supreme Services for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint against it and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint naming Supreme as a direct defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleges she was injured by hazardous substances released into the air during demolition work performed by 360 West 51st Street Realty and the Brusco Realty defendants (including the latter’s property manager, Baranoff). Those defendants commenced a third-party action against Supreme Services, alleging negligent removal of debris from the basement of the apartment building.

Although “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]), an exception exists where a contractor who undertakes to perform services pursuant to a contract negligently creates or exacerbates a dangerous condition by launching its own “force or instrument of harm” (Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., 247 NY 160, 168 [1928]; see also Espinal, 98 NY2d at 141-142; Grant v Caprice Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d 708 [2007]; Prenderville v International Serv. Sys., Inc., 10 AD3d 334 [2004]). Plaintiffs allegation that Supreme negligently removed the debris falls within this exception (see id. at 336-338). The record in this case presents triable issues of fact regarding the manner in which Supreme performed the work for which it had been hired.

We have examined Supreme’s challenge to its addition as a direct party defendant and find it without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Irizarry v. New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.
2025 NY Slip Op 31287(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Guzman v. Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr.
2021 NY Slip Op 00156 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
PARO, CAMERON E. v. PIEDMONT LAND AND CATTLE, LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Paro v. Piedmont Land & Cattle
111 A.D.3d 1425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Kramer v. Cury
92 A.D.3d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Faulkner v. City of New York
79 A.D.3d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Golisano v. Keeler Construction Co.
74 A.D.3d 1915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mosca v. OCE Holding, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Rina v. Windemere Home Owners Ass'n
66 A.D.3d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Bednarczyk v. Vornado Realty Trust
63 A.D.3d 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 469, 857 N.Y.S.2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornell-v-360-west-51st-st-realty-llc-nyappdiv-2008.