Opinion
570215/07.
Decided January 29, 2008.
Defendant Dynaserve appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered September 1, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant Cushman Wakefield, Inc., appeals from an order of the same court (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 31, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, HEITLER, JJ.
Orders, entered September 1, 2006 (Joan M. Kenney, J.), and October 31, 2006 (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), reversed, with $10 costs, defendants' motions for summary judgment granted and the complaint and all cross claims against defendants dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff, an employee of nonparty Verizon, was injured when he was struck by a piece of ice which fell from a roof ledge of a building owned by Verizon. Plaintiff commenced this negligence action against defendant Cushman Wakefield, Inc., the managing agent of the building, and defendant Dynaserve, a snow removal contractor. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal of the complaint, arguing, persuasively in our opinion, that their respective agreements with the building owner did not subject them to tort liability to plaintiff. Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they owed no duty to plaintiff since the respective snow removal and management contracts were not the type of comprehensive and exclusive agreements which entirely displaced Verizon's duty to safely maintain the premises ( see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136; compare Palka v Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 NY2d 579, 588). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants "launch[ed] a force or instrument of harm" or whether plaintiff detrimentally relied on the continued performance of defendants' contractual duties ( see Espinal v Melville, 98 NY2d at 140).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur