Boggio v. Yonkers Contr. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Belmer v. HHM Associates, Inc.

    101 A.D.3d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    Citing Diaz v. Vasques, 17 A.D.3d 134, 793 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept.2005],lv. denied sub nom. Boggio v. Yonkers Contr. Co., 5 N.Y.3d 706, 801 N.Y.S.2d 799, 835 N.E.2d 659 [2005], HHM also argues that it had no duty to plaintiff because its work was performed pursuant to the City's contract specifications and approved by its engineers ( see generally Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002] ). Here, HHM relies on the consulting engineer's testimony that he approved the work as being performed according to specifications.

  2. Rodriguez v. E P Associates

    71 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    The renovation plans, which incorporated plans for the interior build-out by lessee Modell's, did not specify that the area abutting the window was to be weight-bearing, and absent any such instruction from Modell's, there was no basis for designing or building the window ledge to be weight-bearing. The evidence suggesting that the window might be used to display signs, or that the ledge might be used as a display, was not sufficient to put any defendant on notice that the ledge would be used to stand or walk on, and that they were creating a dangerous condition in constructing a non-weightbearing ledge ( see Diaz v Vasques, 17 AD3d 134, 135, lv denied sub nom. Boggio v Yonkers Contr. Co., 5 NY3d 706). Nor did plaintiff submit evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition was a structural defect in violation of the New York City Building Code. Absent a showing of a dangerous condition or code violation that might have supported a finding of negligence per se, plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment, which was untimely filed, was properly denied.