Summary
In Malfatti v 13 Grammercy Park S. Corp. (259 A.D.2d 420 [1st Dept 1999]), the defendants were granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint because "[t]he evidence established that the City employees promptly responded to the notification of a water leak and immediately commenced work to stop It[, and] [p]laintiffs have not demonstrated how those.
Summary of this case from Spindola v. Westchester Joint Water WorksOpinion
March 25, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
Contrary to the IAS Court's decision, the "breadth of activity occurring at the [accident] site" demonstrates the lack of negligence on the part of the City. The evidence establishes that the City employees promptly responded to the notification of a water leak and immediately commenced work to stop it. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how those actions were deficient or that the leak could have been stopped any sooner. Further, the City had no duty to supervise the condensation drainage and restoration of steam service by the Con Ed employees (De Witt Props. v. City of New York, 44 N.Y.2d 417, 425; Gillette Shoe Co. v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 853, 856). Nor is there any evidence that any City employee assumed direction and control over the Con Ed employees' work. Accordingly, there is no basis for liability against defendant City of New York.
Similarly, 13 Gramercy Park South Corporation is entitled to summary judgment. The 10-day notice to effect repairs to the service line was received by 13 Gramercy approximately one hour before the accident. Thus, 13 Gramercy did not have a reasonable opportunity to repair the water leak. There is no evidence that this defendant received constructive notice of the leak or that it created the dangerous condition.
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.