From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheehan v. Pantelidis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 2004
6 A.D.3d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3385.

Decided April 15, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered February 4, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs and stipulated settlements, granted summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint as against Savino, William F. Savino Architects and Jemco Electrical Contractors, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of costs.

Lambert Weiss, New York (Robert Nizewitz of counsel), for appellant.

Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger Kuh, LLP, New York (Bruce H. Wiener of counsel), for Joseph E. Sheehan and Rosa M. Sheehan, respondents.

L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita Contini, Garden City (Marie Ann Hoenings of counsel), for William F. Savino and William F. Savino Architects, respondents.

DeCicco, Gibbons McNamara, P.C., New York (Michael J. Sweeney of counsel), for Jemco Electrical Contractors, Inc., respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.


Plaintiffs and defendant are adjoining property owners, sharing a party wall between their 100-year-old houses. Plaintiffs sued for damage to their house and possessions from noise, dust and unlivable conditions caused by defendant's renovation of his house. Defendant impleaded various contractors he had hired to do the work.

Third-party defendant Savino established that he had been replaced as architect on the project before construction began, with the work proceeding under the plans and supervision of a new architect, thereby relieving Savino of liability for any damage ( see Merritt v. Hooshang Constr., 216 A.D.2d 542, 543). Moreover, defendant's failure to offer an expert affidavit was fatal to his malpractice claim against the architect ( see 530 E. 89 Corp. v. Unger, 43 N.Y.2d 776).

Defendant produced no evidence specifically linking the activities of third-party defendant Jemco, the electrical contractor, to any of plaintiffs' complaints.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Sheehan v. Pantelidis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 2004
6 A.D.3d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Sheehan v. Pantelidis

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH E. SHEEHAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GEORGE PANTELIDIS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 15, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 336

Citing Cases

Wing Wong Realty Corp. v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

The court's determination that the expert failed to establish the propriety of each of the requested…

RCD Bldg. v. Park Slope Condominiums

Efforts to create a separate factual question about Van Brody's alleged negligence resulting from his…