Tracy v. David Christa Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tracy v. David Christa Construction, Inc.

125 A.D.3d 1291, 3 N.Y.S.3d 482

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 1291 (Tracy v. David Christa Construction, 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

Tracy v. David Christa Construction, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 1291, 3 N.Y.S.3d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered September 26, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants David Christa Construction, Inc. and LeChase Construction Services, LLC, for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, defendants-appellants’ motion is granted and the complaint against defendants-appellants is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell at the Greater Rochester International Airport. Defendant David Christa Construction, Inc. (Christa) was the construction manager for a construction project at the airport, and defendant LeChase Construction Services, LLC (LeChase) was the general contractor for the project. Defendants-appellants (defendants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them contending, inter alia, that they did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. As a preliminary matter, we note that, during the pendency of this appeal, plaintiff withdrew her contention that the deposition testimony excerpts submitted by defendants in support of their motion were not in admissible form, and we therefore do not address that contention. We conclude that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that they owed no duty of care to plaintiff who, at the time of her accident, was merely a third-party passerby with no relationship of privity with defendants (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1292]*1292[1980]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to establish that any of the exceptions set forth in Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]) applies (see generally id.; Sniatecki v Violet Realty, Inc., 98 AD3d 1316, 1320-1321 [2012]). Present-Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered September 26, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants David Christa Construction, Inc. and LeChase Construction Services, LLC, for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, defendants-appellants’ motion is granted and the complaint against defendants-appellants is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell at the Greater Rochester International Airport. Defendant David Christa Construction, Inc. (Christa) was the construction manager for a construction project at the airport, and defendant LeChase Construction Services, LLC (LeChase) was the general contractor for the project. Defendants-appellants (defendants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them contending, inter alia, that they did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. As a preliminary matter, we note that, during the pendency of this appeal, plaintiff withdrew her contention that the deposition testimony excerpts submitted by defendants in support of their motion were not in admissible form, and we therefore do not address that contention. We conclude that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that they owed no duty of care to plaintiff who, at the time of her accident, was merely a third-party passerby with no relationship of privity with defendants (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1292]*1292[1980]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to establish that any of the exceptions set forth in Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]) applies (see generally id.; Sniatecki v Violet Realty, Inc., 98 AD3d 1316, 1320-1321 [2012]). Present-Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 1291, 3 N.Y.S.3d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tracy-v-david-christa-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack