New York City on Friday asked a Manhattan Supreme Court judge to order Con Ed to pay its legal fees and take over the defense of nearly 60 lawsuits stemming from a deadly gas explosion in 2014.

In a 13-page complaint, the city Law Department argued that Consolidated Edison Co. of New York was ignoring its obligations to defend the lawsuits under a series of permits it received from the city Department of Transportation in 2011 to perform work at the ill-fated East Harlem work site.

Around 9:30 a.m. on March 12, 2014, a catastrophic explosion ripped through an area just north of 116th Street, leveling two five-story buildings, killing eight people and injuring dozens more. The National Transportation Safety Board later blamed faulty Con Ed pipes for causing the gas leak that led to the explosion and faulted the city for not fixing a nearby sewer line that had been damaged since 2006.

According to the city's filing, 197 plaintiffs filed 63 lawsuits against the city and other defendants in the wake of the explosion. A total of 59 lawsuits—including eight wrongful death actions alleging negligence by Con Ed and the city—remain pending and have been consolidated for discovery purposes. The other four suits were either discontinued or dismissed.

The city said it tendered defense of the individual actions to Con Ed in 2017. According to the city, Con Ed, which is self-insured, agreed when it took out the permits to provide the equivalent of insurance coverage to cover any legal defense costs that arose from the work.

Con Ed refused to accept the tender, saying the lawsuits at issue alleged negligence by the city that was "wholly independent from and unrelated to the work performed pursuant to" the permits.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Eric Proshansky argued in Friday's filing that the underlying lawsuits had alleged negligence arising out of work Con Ed did under the permits and said its reason for refusing the tender was "wholly irrelevant" to its duty to defend the suits.

"Con Edison's refusal to acknowledge its duty to defend the city in the gas explosion actions is contrary to its obligation under the permits and has no basis in the law," Proshansky wrote in the 13-page complaint.

"As a result of Con Edison's wrongful failure to provide the city with a defense in the gas explosion actions, the city has been forced to defend itself through the Law Department in each of the fifty-nine actions comprising the Gas Explosion Actions," he said.

Con Ed, responding to a request for comment, said it was "reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in court."

In a statement late Friday, Proshansky said federal and state authorities had both blamed the explosion on Con Ed's "faulty work" and said it was time for the company to pay up.

"Con Edison is legally obligated to cover the costs incurred by the city to defend approximately 60 cases brought in connection with this incident," he said.

The case is captioned City v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Read More: