PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Team Electric, Inc. Defendant–Appellant. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered April 16, 2024, which denied defendant Team Electric, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action arises from property damage that allegedly resulted when water discharged from a hot water heater.  Plaintiff alleges that the heater was incorrectly installed, and that the pressure and temperature valve and a leak detection/water sensor were not installed at all.  Team Electric, a subcontractor on a project at the premises, failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as it did not tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 322, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986]).  In support of its motion, Team Electric submitted an affidavit of its project manager, along with the purchase order setting forth its scope of work, an email sent with the purchase order, and the conceptual electrical and plumbing plans.  However, those documents do not conclusively establish that Team Electric had no responsibility related to the installation of the leak detection/water sensor.

Assuming arguendo that Team Electric established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, defendants Addison PHS Corp. and Addison Plumbing LLC (together Addison) raised a triable issue of fact through their opposition papers.  Addison's president averred that although Addison acquired the leak detection system, Team Electric was responsible for its installation.  Addison also submitted an affidavit from its engineering expert, who opined that according to the conceptual plumbing plans, Team Electric was responsible for the leak detection system's electrical requirements.

In any event, the summary judgment motion was premature.  No Team Electric witness has been deposed, thus depriving the nonmoving parties of an opportunity to examine witnesses who would have knowledge concerning the relevant issues (see CPLR 3212[f];  Guzman v. City of NY, 171 A.D.3d 653, 653, 99 N.Y.S.3d 286 [1st Dept. 2019];  Figueroa v. City of New York, 126 A.D.3d 438, 439, 5 N.Y.S.3d 62 [1st Dept. 2015]).

We have considered Team Electric's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.