Opinion
2021-03541 Index 159892/15
06-08-2021
American Infertility of New York, P.C. Doing Business as Center for Human Reproduction, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Verizon New York, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. Appeal No. 14031-14031A Nos. 2021-00128, 2021-00141
La Reddola, Lester & Associates, LLP, Garden City (Steven M. Lester of counsel), for appellants. Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, New York (John Van Der Tuin of counsel), for respondent.
La Reddola, Lester & Associates, LLP, Garden City (Steven M. Lester of counsel), for appellants.
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, New York (John Van Der Tuin of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Singh, Moulton, González, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered December 14, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' trespass claim to the extent it seeks damages for lost profits and additional construction costs, other than those related to a specified change order and any inflation in the costs of that charge order over the period of delay, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant demonstrated prima facie that there was no evidence that plaintiffs' construction costs were increased as a result of defendant's alleged four-month delay in moving its main feeder cable from plaintiffs' property, since the construction contract was for a fixed price and, with one exception (Change Order #3), the change orders were unrelated to the cable. On appeal, plaintiffs assert that their claim for additional construction costs is based on the equitable adjustments clause of the construction contract, but that argument was not raised before the motion court and is unpreserved for appellate review (see Diarrassouba v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 123 A.D.3d 525 [1st Dept 2014]; A.J. Clarke Real Estate Corp. v Meyers, 27 A.D.3d 230 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 711 [2006]).
Plaintiffs' lost profits claim was properly dismissed since it is unsupported by any evidence (see St. Lawrence Factory Stores v Ogdensburg Bridge & Port Auth., 13 N.Y.3d 204, 207-208 [2009]; FranPearl Equities Corp. v 124 W. 23rd St., LLC, 164 A.D.3d 1190 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 908 [2019]). Plaintiffs provided no expert analysis to support its contention, and plaintiffs' accountant testified that he had performed no such analysis (see Quik Park W. 57 LLC v Bridgewater Operating Corp., 189 A.D.3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2020]; FranPearl Equities Corp., 164 A.D.3d at 1190; Teramo & Co. v O'Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home, 283 A.D.2d 635, 637 [2d Dept 2001]).
Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the motion court was entitled pursuant to CPLR 3212(e) to dismiss specific categories of damages (see Koch v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 62 N.Y.2d 548, 560 [1984]; see e.g. Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 405 [1993]; David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cous Laws of NY CPLR C3217:30).