Opinion
01-08-2015
GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of Aby Rosen, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ESTELLE IRRIGATION CORP., et al., Defendants–Appellants. Town & Gardens, Ltd., Defendant. 5 East 80th St. LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The Window Box MG Ltd., et al., Defendants–Appellants. The Window Box MG Ltd. Third–Party, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Tri–Star Construction LLC, Third–Party, Defendant–Respondent.
Law Office Of James J. Toomey, New York (Eric P. Tosca of counsel for Estelle Irrigation Corp., appellant. Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York (John Sandercock of counsel), for The Window Box MG Ltd., appellant. Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Naomi M. Taub of counsel), for Great Northern Insurance Company, respondent. Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Elan R. Dobbs of counsel), for 5 East 80th St. LLC, respondent. Raven & Kolbe, LLP, New York (Michael T. Gleason of counsel), for Tri–Star Construction LLC, respondent.
Law Office Of James J. Toomey, New York (Eric P. Tosca of counsel for Estelle Irrigation Corp., appellant.
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York (John Sandercock of counsel), for The Window Box MG Ltd., appellant.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Naomi M. Taub of counsel), for Great Northern Insurance Company, respondent.
Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Elan R. Dobbs of counsel), for 5 East 80th St. LLC, respondent.
Raven & Kolbe, LLP, New York (Michael T. Gleason of counsel), for Tri–Star Construction LLC, respondent.
SWEENY, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered August 30, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants Estelle Irrigation Corp.'s and The Window Box MG Ltd.'s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and granted third-party defendant Tri–Star Construction LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Estelle's motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. There is no evidence of a written or oral contract that required Estelle to maintain, and thus winterize, plaintiffs' garden irrigation system. Nor is there evidence that Estelle, an "on call" irrigation company, assumed a duty to maintain the system (see Heard v. City of New
York, 82 N.Y.2d 66, 72, 603 N.Y.S.2d 414, 623 N.E.2d 541 [1993] ).
Window Box failed to show that plaintiffs lost or destroyed key evidence (see Mohammed v. Command Sec. Corp., 83 A.D.3d 605, 921 N.Y.S.2d 252 [1st Dept.2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 4030041 [2011] ). All the parties had access to the property, and there is no evidence as to who disposed of the cracked component of the irrigation system.
Window Box's argument that it is entitled to contribution from Tri–Star because the latter's insufficient plastering or insulation contributed to the damage to the property is unpreserved for our review (see Stryker v. Stelmak, 69 A.D.3d 454, 892 N.Y.S.2d 102 [1st Dept.2010] ).