Opinion
7415 Index 651889/13
10-23-2018
Dr. Arturo CONSTANTINER, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. The SOVEREIGN APARTMENTS, INC., Defendant, Alan Kersh, etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, New York (Debra M. Schoenberg of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Fred L. Seeman, New York (Fred L. Seeman of counsel), for respondents.
Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, New York (Debra M. Schoenberg of counsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Fred L. Seeman, New York (Fred L. Seeman of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Kahn, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered November 1, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Alan Kersh and Candace Kersh's motion to dismiss the causes of action for negligence and injunctive relief as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants argue that any negligence associated with the reconstruction of the floor in their bedroom was committed by their independent contractor and that therefore they cannot be held liable for the alleged resulting unreasonable amount of sound in plaintiffs' apartment below (see Saini v. Tonju Assoc., 299 A.D.2d 244, 245, 750 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1st Dept. 2002] ). However, the affidavit by plaintiffs' sound impact expert discussing the contractor's testimony that "one of the most important ... instructions that [he] had from the architect and the Kershes[ ][was] to make sure that the level of [the master bedroom] floor corresponds with the adjacent areas" indicates that defendants exercised some control over the contractor's work (see id. ; see also Moore v. Maddock, 224 A.D. 401, 404, 231 N.Y.S. 291 [1st Dept. 1928], affd 251 N.Y. 420, 167 N.E. 572 [1929] ).
Plaintiff argues that the empirical data indicates that the uncarpeted area of defendants' bedroom had a floor impact insulation class rating of 44, which violates the New York City Building Code (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 1207.3). This allegation is sufficient to withstand dismissal of the negligence cause of action at this juncture, as a violation of the Administrative Code is some evidence of negligence ( Elliott v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 730, 734, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397, 747 N.E.2d 760 [2001] ).
The cause of action for injunctive relief also remains viable; it is drafted in sufficiently general terms not to be limited to the dismissed nuisance cause of action.