Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Sanco Mechanical, Inc.

126 A.D.3d 527, 5 N.Y.S.3d 88
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 2015
Docket14248 159207/12
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 527 (Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Sanco Mechanical, 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
Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Sanco Mechanical, Inc., 126 A.D.3d 527, 5 N.Y.S.3d 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered August 30, 2013, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the “res ipsa loquitur” cause of action, as well as the first cause of action only to the extent it sounds in gross negligence, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs “res ipsa loquitur” cause of action should be dismissed, because res ipsa loquitur is a not a separate theory of liability (see Ianotta v Tishman Speyer Props., Inc., 46 AD3d 297, 299 [1st Dept 2007]). However, plaintiff may invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where appropriate in this action (see id.). As to gross negligence, plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to support said claim.

The motion court correctly denied all other aspects of defendant’s motion to dismiss. The action, involving a flood at an Ann Taylor retail store, is not time-barred, as it was commenced within three years of the date of the accident (see CPLR 214 [4]; Town of Oyster Bay v Lizza Indus., Inc., 22 NY3d 1024, 1031 [2013]). Nor is the action barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata. The parties agreed that plaintiff would discontinue its first action against defendant without prejudice to reinstating its claims. Accordingly, it would be in *528 equitable to preclude plaintiff from bringing this action against defendant (see Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 14 [2008]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments, including its contention that plaintiff failed to state a claim against it for common law negligence, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

Barbaro v. Eger Health Care & Rehabilitation Ctr.
2024 NY Slip Op 50882(U) (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, 2024)
Krol v. Yager-Krol
145 A.D.3d 1249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.3d 527, 5 N.Y.S.3d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-property-casualty-co-of-america-v-sanco-mechanical-inc-nyappdiv-2015.