Opinion
June 18, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.).
Plaintiff, the owner of the premises located at 306 East 61st Street, commenced this action against the owners of the adjacent building located at 303 East 60th Street, its architects ("the Gruzen defendants"), and various other contractors asserting, inter alia, that these parties negligently under-pinned its building in such a manner as to cause damage to its structural soundness.
The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment to the Gruzen defendants. The Gruzen defendants submitted documentary evidence consisting of an agreement between them and the predecessor in interest to 303 East 60th Street which completely exonerated them from liability for construction defects or safety precautions in connection with the project (see, Jewish Bd. of Guardians v Grumman Allied Indus., 96 A.D.2d 465, 467, affd 62 N.Y.2d 684). The Gruzen defendants also came forward with other contractual documents placing the responsibility for the design and construction of the underpinning system on others.
Those opposing the Gruzen defendants' motion failed to come forward with sufficient proof to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact concerning the Gruzen defendants' involvement with the design and construction of the underpinning system (see, Diocese of Rochester v. R-Monde Contrs., 148 Misc.2d 926, affd for reasons stated 166 A.D.2d 891), or their awareness of a defect and their failure to notify the owner of it (Board of Educ. v. Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw Folley, 146 A.D.2d 190, 196, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 702).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.