Jill Robbins, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jill Robbins, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.

223 A.D.2d 352, 636 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 40

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 352 (Jill Robbins, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.) 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

Jill Robbins, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc., 223 A.D.2d 352, 636 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 40 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered May 23, 1994, upon a memorandum decision dated July 9, 1992 (Peter Tom, J.), which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings, without costs.

Unlike Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp. (76 NY2d 220), where property damage was caused when a fire sprinkler system malfunctioned and flooded the leased premises, the damage here was allegedly caused when, during the course of working on the building’s sprinkler system, defendant’s employees left a valve open and then pumped water through the system flooding plaintiff’s leased premises. [353]*353Plaintiff is not alleging that the damage was caused by a failure of the Central Station Signaling System covered by defendant’s service contract with the building’s owner, but is alleging that it was simple negligence on the part of defendant which caused the flood. Such issue is a jury question to be resolved at trial. Moreover, inasmuch as plaintiff is not a party to the alarm protection contract between defendant and the building owner, plaintiff’s cause of action here is unaffected by the liability limitations contained in that clause. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered May 23, 1994, upon a memorandum decision dated July 9, 1992 (Peter Tom, J.), which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings, without costs.

Unlike Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp. (76 NY2d 220), where property damage was caused when a fire sprinkler system malfunctioned and flooded the leased premises, the damage here was allegedly caused when, during the course of working on the building’s sprinkler system, defendant’s employees left a valve open and then pumped water through the system flooding plaintiff’s leased premises. [353]*353Plaintiff is not alleging that the damage was caused by a failure of the Central Station Signaling System covered by defendant’s service contract with the building’s owner, but is alleging that it was simple negligence on the part of defendant which caused the flood. Such issue is a jury question to be resolved at trial. Moreover, inasmuch as plaintiff is not a party to the alarm protection contract between defendant and the building owner, plaintiff’s cause of action here is unaffected by the liability limitations contained in that clause. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 352, 636 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jill-robbins-inc-v-afa-protective-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack