Opinion
No. 4444.
March 8, 2011.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered March 13, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendants Van Jay Brody, R.A., and Van Jan Brody, Architect, P.C. (collectively, Brody), and Jack William Mendelson, EE. and JWM Consulting (collectively, Mendelson) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Gennet, Kallmann, Antin Robinson, P.C., New York (Donald G. Sweetman of counsel), for appellant.
McMahon, Martine Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick W. Brophy of counsel), for Architron Designers and Builders, Inc., respondent.
Law Offices of Michael E. Pressman, New York (Eric S. Fenyes of counsel), for J.J.H. Construction Corp., respondent.
Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for 360 West 28th Street, LLC and Mitchell Hirth, respondents.
Milber Makris Plousadis Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Joseph V. Cambareri of counsel), for Van Jay Brody respondents.
Gogick, Byrne O'Neill, LLP, New York (John Rondello of counsel), for Jack William Mendelson, P.E. and JWM Consulting, respondents.
Before: Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Plaintiff contends that Brody's and Mendelson's alleged failure to comply with certain Building Code provisions, including Administrative Code of City of NY former § 27-157 (repealed by Local Law No. 33 [2007] of City of NY [eff July 1, 2008]), governing the filing of architectural and structural plans constitutes evidence of negligence on their part. However, these provisions require the filing of plans but do not provide any substantive standards specifying, for example, when shoring may be required in an excavation project. Hence, plaintiff cannot show a causal relationship between its alleged loss and any negligence on Brody's or Mendelson's part in failing to file allegedly "complete" plans ( see Driscoll v Tower Assoc., 16 AD3d 311, 313; see also Miller v Astucci U.S. Ltd., 2007 WL 102092, *9, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 4436, *28 [SD NY 2007]).
We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including those based upon the assertions of its expert engineer, and find them unavailing.