Opinion
02-02-2017
DE–SPEC, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Dr. Neil SADICK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Richman & Levine, P.C., Garden City (Keith Richman of counsel), for appellants. Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, White Plains (James Baden of counsel), for respondent.
Richman & Levine, P.C., Garden City (Keith Richman of counsel), for appellants.
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, White Plains (James Baden of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants' counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The affirmation of plaintiff's attorney, as well as the contract between the parties and related documents were properly submitted in support of plaintiff's motion, regardless of whether the attorney had first-hand knowledge of the underlying facts (see Olan v. Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 1092, 489 N.Y.S.2d 884, 479 N.E.2d 229 [1985] ; Furlender v. Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP, 79 A.D.3d 470, 912 N.Y.S.2d 204 [1st Dept.2010] ). Based on the plain language of the contract, plaintiff was only responsible for interior design work, and was not responsible for any work or service provided by any other contractor or subcontractor. Thus, plaintiff was not responsible for the alleged damages defendants incurred based on the improper demolition work performed by a nonparty contractor, hired by defendants to work at the renovation site (see Hernandez v Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc., 33 A.D.3d 536, 537, 823 N.Y.S.2d 377 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 816, 839 N.Y.S.2d 455, 870 N.E.2d 696 [2007] ; 306 E. 61st St. Corp. v. 303 E. 60th St. Assoc., 184 A.D.2d 346, 584 N.Y.S.2d 845 [1st Dept.1992] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.