Opinion
11349 Index 310107/11
04-02-2020
Glenda MELENDEZ, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent, Lakhi General Contractor, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne (Colleen E. Hastie of counsel), for appellant. Breadbar, Garfield, New York (Martin R. Garfield of counsel), for Glenda Melendez, respondent. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), The City of New York, respondent.
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne (Colleen E. Hastie of counsel), for appellant.
Breadbar, Garfield, New York (Martin R. Garfield of counsel), for Glenda Melendez, respondent.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), The City of New York, respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about December 13, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Lakhi's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Lakhi, which contracted with defendant City to construct a sidewalk shed that, in part, fell on plaintiff's decedent approximately five years after it was constructed, did not establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The unsigned contract agreement with the City was insufficient to establish the scope of its contractual obligations, including whether the shed was to be temporary or permanent. Lakhi also failed to establish that it did not owe a duty of care to third parties using the sidewalk, since it did not eliminate issues of fact as to whether it negligently constructed the sidewalk shed, thereby launching a dangerous condition (see Anastasio v. Berry Complex, LLC , 82 A.D.3d 808, 809, 918 N.Y.S.2d 216 [2d Dept. 2011] ; Dickert v. City of New York , 268 A.D.2d 343, 343–344, 701 N.Y.S.2d 416 [1st Dept. 2000] ; see generally Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs. , 98 N.Y.2d 136, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002] ).
We have considered Lakhi's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.