4155-4157. 11 ESSEX STREET CORP., plf-ap, v. TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, def — 11 ESSEX STREET CORP., plf-ap, v. 7 ESSEX STREET, LLC C/O VESTA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, def, DESIMONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS def-res, JEFFREY M. BROWN ASSOCIATES, INC., def-ap, BIG APPLE WRECKING AND CONSTRUCTING GROUP, def — [AND OTHER ACTIONS] Weg & Myers, P.C., New York (Dennis T. D’Antonio of counsel), for 11 Essex Street Corp., ap — Harrington, Ocko & Monk, LLP, White Plains (Kevin J. Harrington of counsel), for Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc., ap — Zetlin & De Chiara LLP, New York (Raymond T. Mello of counsel), for DeSimone Consulting Engineers, res Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for Berzak Gold, P.C., res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered August 27, 2015, which granted defendant DeSimone Consulting Engineers’ (DCE) motion for a directed verdict dismissing all claims and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 13, 2015, which granted defendant Berzak Gold, P.C.’s (Berzak) motion for a directed verdict dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the matter remanded for a new trial. Amended order, same court and Justice, entered April 28, 2016, which granted Berzak’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing defendant Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc.’s (JMB) cross claims and granted JMB’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing the claims for gross negligence and punitive damages against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny JMB’s motion and to deny Berzak’s motion as to its breach of contract, contribution and common-law indemnification claims, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
These appeals arise out of a months-long trial that ultimately resulted in a mistrial. Over a twomonth period, plaintiff, the owner of a five-story walk-up apartment building, called 11 witnesses, including an expert who testified over the course of seven days through two rounds of direct and two rounds of cross-examination. The issue in the case was whether defendants were liable for the damage to plaintiff’s building caused when construction on a neighboring site resulted in the alleged shifting of plaintiff’s building’s foundation. Plaintiff asserted that the underpinning installed to prevent such movement was inadequate. JMB was the general contractor retained by defendant 7 Essex Street, LLC, the owner of three lots next to plaintiff’s property, to demolish the buildings on the lots and construct a 10-story condominium building in their place. 7 Essex also retained an architect, and the architect hired defendant DCE to perform the structural design for the new building. Berzak was retained by JMB as a consultant to design an underpinning system.
