De-Spec, Inc. v. Sadick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De-Spec, Inc. v. Sadick

2017 NY Slip Op 734, 147 A.D.3d 425, 45 N.Y.S.3d 796

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2017

Docket2983 102107/06

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 734 (De-Spec, Inc. v. Sadick) 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

De-Spec, Inc. v. Sadick, 2017 NY Slip Op 734, 147 A.D.3d 425, 45 N.Y.S.3d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmation of plaintiff’s attorney, as well as the contract between the parties and related documents were properly submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion, regardless of whether the attorney had first-hand knowledge of the underlying facts (see Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092 [1985]; Furlender v Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP, 79 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2010]). Based on the plain language of the contract, plaintiff was only responsible for interior design work, and was not responsible for any work or service provided by any other contractor or subcontractor. Thus, plaintiff was not responsible for the alleged damages defendants incurred based on the improper demolition work performed by a nonparty contractor, hired by defendants to work at the renovation site (see Hernandez v Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc., 33 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007]; 306 E. 61st St. Corp. v 303 E. 60th St. Assoc., 184 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 1992]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmation of plaintiff’s attorney, as well as the contract between the parties and related documents were properly submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion, regardless of whether the attorney had first-hand knowledge of the underlying facts (see Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092 [1985]; Furlender v Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP, 79 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2010]). Based on the plain language of the contract, plaintiff was only responsible for interior design work, and was not responsible for any work or service provided by any other contractor or subcontractor. Thus, plaintiff was not responsible for the alleged damages defendants incurred based on the improper demolition work performed by a nonparty contractor, hired by defendants to work at the renovation site (see Hernandez v Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc., 33 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007]; 306 E. 61st St. Corp. v 303 E. 60th St. Assoc., 184 AD2d 346 [1st Dept 1992]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 734, 147 A.D.3d 425, 45 N.Y.S.3d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-spec-inc-v-sadick-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack