Opinion
2017–03030 Index No. 13753/13
12-12-2018
Charisse M. CHRISTIAN, Respondent, v. 709 BRIGHTON BEACH, LLC, et al., Defendants, Henado Maintenance Services, Inc., Appellant.
Tobias & Kuhn, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Veras and Alexander Statsky of counsel), for appellant. Miller, Montiel & Strano, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (David Strano of counsel), for respondent.
Tobias & Kuhn, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Veras and Alexander Statsky of counsel), for appellant.
Miller, Montiel & Strano, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (David Strano of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Henado Maintenance Services, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (David B. Vaughan, J.), dated February 8, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped on a liquid substance that was on the floor of a bathroom at her employer's premises. She commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against, among others, Henado Maintenance Services, Inc. (hereinafter Henado), which had contracted to provide cleaning services at the premises. The plaintiff alleged in her bill of particulars that Henado created the hazardous condition. Henado cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court denied Henado's cross motion, and Henado appeals.
We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of Henado's cross motion. While a contractual obligation generally does not give rise to liability in tort to persons not a party to the contract, an exception exists "where the contractor created a dangerous condition or increased the risk of harm to others in its undertaking" ( Grosse v. Olsen, 164 A.D.3d 763, 764, 83 N.Y.S.3d 256 [internal citations omitted]; see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 ; Glover v. John Tyler Enters., Inc., 123 A.D.3d 882, 999 N.Y.S.2d 150 ; George v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 61 A.D.3d 925, 878 N.Y.S.2d 143 ). Here, in opposition to Henado's prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ), the plaintiff, through the submission of the affidavit of a former coworker of the plaintiff, along with other evidence, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Henado created the alleged hazardous condition (see Leibowitz v. 2555 E. 12th St. Corp., 128 A.D.3d 1023, 1024, 10 N.Y.S.3d 298 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.