CHATHAM TOWERS, INC., plf-ap, v. CASTLE RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION, INC. def-res, XYZ CORP. def

4524. CHATHAM TOWERS, INC., plf-ap, v. CASTLE RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION, INC. def-res, XYZ CORP. def — Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP, Garden City (Ronald M. Terenzi of counsel), for ap — Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, Mineola (Tina Yanover of counsel), for Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., res — Lavin, O'Neil, Cedrone & DiSipio, New York (Michael McKeon of counsel), for Kemper System America, Inc., res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered March 21, 2017, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted defendant Kemper System America, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4524. CHATHAM TOWERS, INC., plf-ap, v. CASTLE RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION, INC. def-res, XYZ CORP. def — Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP, Garden City (Ronald M. Terenzi of counsel), for ap — Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, Mineola (Tina Yanover of counsel), for Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., res — Lavin, O’Neil, Cedrone & DiSipio, New York (Michael McKeon of counsel), for Kemper System America, Inc., res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered March 21, 2017, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability and granted defendant Kemper System America, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., and Kemper System America, Inc. are liable for breach of contract and breach of warranty, respectively, on a theory of res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur “permits the inference of negligence to be drawn from the circumstance of the occurrence” (Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]). “[W] ithout a cause of action for negligence there is no viable cause of action to which to apply the doctrine” (Ianotta v. Tishman Speyer Props, Inc., 46 AD3d 297, 299 [1st Dept 2007]).

CHATHAM TOWERS, INC., plf-ap, v. CASTLE RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION, INC. def-res, XYZ CORP. def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal