Mariacher v. LPCiminelli, Inc.

205 N.Y.S.3d 832

Matthew T. MARIACHER and Louise Mariacher, Plaintiffs,

v.LPCIMINELLI, INC., LPCiminelli Construction Corp., Defendants-Respondents,

I.C. Construction Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Appeal No. 1.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: March 22, 2024

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John B. Licata, J.), entered March 8, 2023. The order granted the motion of defendants LPCiminelli, Inc., and LPCiminelli Construction Corp. seeking contractual indemnification from defendant I.C. Construction Services, Inc.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (JAMES M. SPECYAL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (JULIE E. MIKOLAJCAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, GREENWOOD, AND KEANE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Matthew T. Mariacher (plaintiff) in September 2017 while he was working as a teacher assigned to bus duty outside a school. Plaintiff was standing on a sidewalk when he fell due to a drop-off between the sidewalk and the abutting grass. Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendants, various contractors who were involved in a construction project (project) at the school that was completed in July 2013. As part of the project, certain sidewalks were removed and replaced, including the sidewalk at issue here. Plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by defendants’ failure during the project to fill in the area to raise the lawn to the same height as the adjacent sidewalk.

In appeal No. 1, defendant I.C. Construction Services, Inc. (ICC) appeals from an order granting the motion of defendants LPCiminelli, Inc. (Ciminelli) and LPCiminelli Construction Corp. (Ciminelli Construction) (collectively, Ciminelli defen- dants) for summary judgment seeking contractual indemnification from ICC. In appeal No. 2, ICC, the Ciminelli defendants, and defendants Lisa Doucet, doing business as Shades of Color, and Shades of Color, Inc. (collectively, SOC) separately appeal from an order denying their motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ amended complaint and all crossclaims against them.

With respect to appeal No. 2, Ciminelli Construction contends that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the motion of the Ciminelli defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims against Ciminelli Construction because it is not a proper defendant to the action inasmuch as it had no involvement in the project. Plaintiffs do not oppose that relief, and we therefore modify the order accordingly (see generally Sochan v. Mueller, 162 A.D.3d 1621, 1622-1623, 78 N.Y.S.3d 608 [4th Dept. 2018]).

We agree with SOC with respect to appeal No. 2 that the court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the amended complaint and all cross-claims against it, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. "[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party" (Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 138, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002]; see Church v. Callanan Indus., 99 N.Y.2d 104, 111, 752 N.Y.S.2d 254, 782 N.E.2d 50 [2002]). That is because "imposing liability under such circumstances could render the contracting parties liable in tort to ‘an indefinite number of potential beneficiaries’ " (Espinal, 98 N.Y.2d at 139, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485, quoting Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 168, 159 N.E. 896 [1928]). In Espinal, the Court of Appeals identified "three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons" (id. at 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485), only the first of which is at issue here. The first exception applies "where the promisor, while engaged affirmatively in discharging a contractual obligation, creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, or increases that risk" (Church, 99 N.Y.2d at 111, 752 N.Y.S.2d 254, 782 N.E.2d 50; see Espinal, 98 N.Y.2d at 140, 142-143, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485). Stated another way, a contracting party may have assumed a duty of care where, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, it " ‘launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’ " (Espinal, 98 N.Y.2d at 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485; see Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr., 211 A.D.3d 1582, 1583, 181 N.Y.S.3d 793 [4th Dept. 2022]).

Here, Ciminelli was the construction manager for the project and subcontracted all the work to various prime contractors, including ICC, which acted as the general contractor. The contract between Ciminelli and the City of Buffalo City School District (BCSD) included "Contract 101 - General Construction," which required Ciminelli to perform "Specification Section 02920 - Lawns and Grasses." In particular, Ciminelli was required to "renovate all existing lawn and garden areas damaged during construction … that are located within the project limit lines." In its contract with ICC, Ciminelli assigned Contract 101 to ICC. ICC subcontracted the sidewalk work to SOC but, in the contract between those parties, Specification Section 02920 is not listed. SOC subcontracted the sidewalk work to defendant Mark Cerrone, Inc. and did no work on the project itself.

We agree with SOC that it established that it was not responsible for filling or fine grading the area at issue, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, SOC is not raising that issue for the first time on appeal (see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 985, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 1994]). SOC was therefore entitled to summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it inasmuch as it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition in the area of plaintiff’s accident (see generally Barends v. Louis P. Ciminelli Constr. Co., Inc., 46 A.D.3d 1412, 1413, 849 N.Y.S.2d 737 [4th Dept. 2007]).

We agree with Ciminelli with respect to appeal No. 2 that the court erred in denying the motion of the Ciminelli defendants for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims against Ciminelli, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. "The general rule in New York is that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts" (Tschetter v. Sam Longs' Landscaping, Inc., 156 A.D.3d 1346, 1347, 68 N.Y.S.3d 292 [4th Dept. 2017], citing Kleeman v. Rheingold, 81 N.Y.2d 270, 273-274, 598 N.Y.S.2d 149, 614 N.E.2d 712 [1993]), but there is an exception to that rule where there has been negligent supervision on the part of the hiring party (see Wendt v. Bent Pyramid Prods., LLC, 108 A.D.3d 1032, 1033, 970 N.Y.S.2d 138 [4th Dept. 2013]). Here, however, as the construction manager, Ciminelli exercised only general supervisory powers over the contractors on the project. "Neither the retention of inspection privileges nor the general power to supervise and coordinate the work being done constitutes sufficient control to render [Ciminelli] liable" (Farnsworth v. Brookside Constr. Co., Inc., 31 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 818 N.Y.S.2d 386 [4th Dept. 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 713, 824 N.Y.S.2d 605, 857 N.E.2d 1136 [2006]; see Foley v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 84 A.D.3d 476, 477, 923 N.Y.S.2d 57 [1st Dept. 2011]; Barends, 46 A.D.3d at 1413, 849 N.Y.S.2d 737).

Contrary to the contention of ICC with respect to appeal No. 2, the court properly denied its motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the amended complaint and all cross-claims against it. As explained above, the contract between Ciminelli and ICC required ICC to perform all work in Contract 101, including Specification Section 02920, and ICC failed to establish that it subcontracted that work to another contractor. We conclude that ICC remained responsible for that work.

ICC contends that it did not assume a duty of care to plaintiff under Espinal because of the lengthy passage of time between the completion of the project and the accident (four years), the fact that no complaints were made regarding the area during those years,...