Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jason B. BASS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. LT 424 LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants, The Grenadier Corporation, Defendant–Appellant–Respondent,
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Defendant–Respondent. LT 424 LLC, et al., Third–Party Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants, v. The Grenadier Corporation, Third–Party Defendant–Appellant–Respondent, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc, Third–Party Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Latin, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2023, which denied the motions of defendant The Grenadier Corporation and defendants LT 424 LLC and Lord & Taylor, LLC (collectively LT) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly found that questions of fact exist as to whether Grenadier launched a force of harm so as to make it liable to plaintiff, who was struck by debris that fell from a building façade (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 141–142, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002]). There is evidence that a spall in the limestone façade at the third story water table was repaired between 2006 and 2007, during a time when Grenadier performed work in that area (see Salomon v. United States Tennis Assn., 181 A.D.3d 446, 446–447, 121 N.Y.S.3d 22 [1st Dept. 2020]). The piece of façade that broke off showed evidence of repair with a zamac nailin anchor that several witnesses testified was inappropriate for use in limestone. Thus, Grenadier arguably made the façade condition more dangerous as a result of its work (see Bharat v. RPI Indus., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 491, 491, 954 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept. 2012]; Grant v. Caprice Mgt. Corp., 43 A.D.3d 708, 709, 841 N.Y.S.2d 555 [1st Dept. 2007]; Ocampo v. Abetta Boiler & Welding Serv., Inc., 33 A.D.3d 332, 333, 822 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2006]).
The motion court also correctly denied summary judgment to LT. LT's compliance with Local Law 11 by performing regularly required inspections of the façade does not immunize it from liability. There is evidence that an additional inspection, prior to plaintiff's 2015 accident, in connection with a larger proposed project to restore the façade, placed LT on notice of the defective condition of the façade's water table (see generally Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969, 622 N.Y.S.2d 493, 646 N.E.2d 795 [1994]). While bids were received for work that included repairing stone cracks and spalls, it does not appear that LT took any action on those proposals prior to the accident occurring.
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3835
Decided: March 06, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)