Opinion
April 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).
Ordered that the appeal in Action No. 3 is dismissed as withdrawn, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with one bill of costs to the respondents in Action Nos. 1 and 2.
The instant actions arise from a fire that occurred on the yacht Lady Louise while docked at the Montauk Yacht Club. The plaintiffs in all three actions allege that the fire was caused by negligent repairs to a washing machine performed by the defendant Eastern Long Island Appliance (hereinafter Eastern). As a result of the fire, the yacht Last Chance, which was docked next to the Lady Louise, was damaged and the sum of $95,000 was paid by the insurers of that yacht to its owners. Ingrid Ain was a passenger on another boat and allegedly sustained injuries while fleeing the fire.
The insurers, as subrogees of the owners of the damaged vessel Last Chance, commenced Action No. 1 against Eastern, among others, to recover the amount they had paid on the claim. Ingrid and Martin Ain commenced Action No. 2 to recover damages for personal injuries, etc. Subsequently, Eastern moved for summary judgment on the basis that it did not owe a duty of care to the owners of the damaged yacht or to Ingrid Ain.
We find that the Supreme Court properly denied Eastern's motion for summary judgment. Before a defendant may be held liable for negligence, there must first be a legal duty owed by that defendant to the plaintiff (see, Krinick v Sharac Rest., 144 A.D.2d 440; Pulka v Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781). Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court (see, Eiseman v State of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 175, 187), which must consider the social consequences of imposing a duty and then tailor the duty in order to limit the legal consequences to a controllable degree (see, Eiseman v State of New York, supra; Bodaness v Staten Is. Aid, 170 A.D.2d 637; see also, Parks v Hutchins, 162 A.D.2d 666, affd 78 N.Y.2d 1049). We conclude that Eastern owed a duty to use ordinary care and skill in its activities to avoid danger and injury to the person and property of others (see, Havas v Victory Paper Stock Co., 49 N.Y.2d 381, 386).
We have considered Eastern's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.