Kleinberg v. 516 West 19th LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleinberg v. 516 West 19th LLC

138 A.D.3d 549, 31 N.Y.S.3d 12

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

DecidedApril 19, 2016

Docket857 109371/09 591008/09 590362/10 590873/12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 549 (Kleinberg v. 516 West 19th 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

Kleinberg v. 516 West 19th LLC, 138 A.D.3d 549, 31 N.Y.S.3d 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered on or about January 29, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied second third-party defendant’s (KNS) motion to dismiss second third-party plaintiff the J Construction Company, LLC’s (J Con) remaining *550 claims and all cross claims against it on the ground of spoliation of evidence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

J Con, the general contractor, discharged any duty it had to advise KNS, the roof installation subcontractor, that litigation over the integrity of the allegedly leaky roof had been commenced by sending KNS a copy of the complaint in the main action, together with a demand that KNS defend and indemnify it in that action. In addition to being intimately familiar with the roof — having installed it — KNS was also involved in the remediation efforts for months after the roof was installed. It was obvious from the facts and from the face of the complaint that the integrity of the roof was at issue. Under the circumstances, J Con was not negligent (see Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 170, 173 [1st Dept 1997]). Indeed, KNS failed to take steps to protect itself and J Con, its principal (see Russo v BMW of N Am., LLC, 82 AD3d 643 [1st Dept 2011]). In light of the record of water penetrating into plaintiffs’ units for many months and the issuance by the Department of Buildings of violations and directives to repair the roof, the removal and replacement of the roof does not constitute spoliation, because it “was not done in bad faith to harm [KNS’s] litigation posture, but rather for purposes of mitigation of damages” (Yager v Thompson, 8 Misc 3d 138[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51286 [U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see Popfinger v Terminix Intl. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 251 AD2d 564 [2d Dept 1998]).

Given the extensive evidence of the condition and alleged defects of the roof, and the comprehensive expert reports, KNS failed to show that it has been prejudiced by the destruction of the roof (see Myers v Sadlor, 16 AD3d 257 [1st Dept 2005]; Romano v Scalia & DeLucia Plumbing, 280 AD2d 658, 659 [2d Dept 2001]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, 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 on or about January 29, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied second third-party defendant’s (KNS) motion to dismiss second third-party plaintiff the J Construction Company, LLC’s (J Con) remaining *550 claims and all cross claims against it on the ground of spoliation of evidence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

J Con, the general contractor, discharged any duty it had to advise KNS, the roof installation subcontractor, that litigation over the integrity of the allegedly leaky roof had been commenced by sending KNS a copy of the complaint in the main action, together with a demand that KNS defend and indemnify it in that action. In addition to being intimately familiar with the roof — having installed it — KNS was also involved in the remediation efforts for months after the roof was installed. It was obvious from the facts and from the face of the complaint that the integrity of the roof was at issue. Under the circumstances, J Con was not negligent (see Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 170, 173 [1st Dept 1997]). Indeed, KNS failed to take steps to protect itself and J Con, its principal (see Russo v BMW of N Am., LLC, 82 AD3d 643 [1st Dept 2011]). In light of the record of water penetrating into plaintiffs’ units for many months and the issuance by the Department of Buildings of violations and directives to repair the roof, the removal and replacement of the roof does not constitute spoliation, because it “was not done in bad faith to harm [KNS’s] litigation posture, but rather for purposes of mitigation of damages” (Yager v Thompson, 8 Misc 3d 138[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51286 [U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see Popfinger v Terminix Intl. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 251 AD2d 564 [2d Dept 1998]).

Given the extensive evidence of the condition and alleged defects of the roof, and the comprehensive expert reports, KNS failed to show that it has been prejudiced by the destruction of the roof (see Myers v Sadlor, 16 AD3d 257 [1st Dept 2005]; Romano v Scalia & DeLucia Plumbing, 280 AD2d 658, 659 [2d Dept 2001]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 549, 31 N.Y.S.3d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinberg-v-516-west-19th-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack