Piamenta v. Second Generation Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piamenta v. Second Generation Realty Co.

2 A.D.3d 304, 770 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13692

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 304 (Piamenta v. Second Generation Realty Co.) 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

Piamenta v. Second Generation Realty Co., 2 A.D.3d 304, 770 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 9, 2003, which denied the motion of "VI.P Fire Sprinkler Inc. (VIP) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although VII] in support of its summary judgment motion, [305]*305established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the expert affidavit submitted by respondents in opposition to VIP’s motion, based on their expert’s postaccident examination of the removed length of ruptured pipe, was sufficient to raise factual issues as to whether the pipe was visibly corroded prior to the accident and, accordingly, as to whether its deteriorated condition should have been detected and remedied prior to its rupture and the alleged consequent harm to plaintiffs (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The record also discloses the existence of a triable issue as to whether VIP was, pursuant to its contractual undertaking to provide sprinkler system maintenance, responsible for inspecting the feeder pipe in question.

We have considered VIP’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 9, 2003, which denied the motion of "VI.P Fire Sprinkler Inc. (VIP) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although VII] in support of its summary judgment motion, [305]*305established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the expert affidavit submitted by respondents in opposition to VIP’s motion, based on their expert’s postaccident examination of the removed length of ruptured pipe, was sufficient to raise factual issues as to whether the pipe was visibly corroded prior to the accident and, accordingly, as to whether its deteriorated condition should have been detected and remedied prior to its rupture and the alleged consequent harm to plaintiffs (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The record also discloses the existence of a triable issue as to whether VIP was, pursuant to its contractual undertaking to provide sprinkler system maintenance, responsible for inspecting the feeder pipe in question.

We have considered VIP’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 304, 770 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piamenta-v-second-generation-realty-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack