ABRAMOV v. Arsenal Scaffolding, Inc., Defendant–Appellant. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2024, which denied defendant Arsenal Scaffolding, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Arsenal established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it.  Plaintiff was neither a party to the subcontract nor an intended beneficiary under the subcontract that obligated Arsenal to install sidewalk sheds at the location where the accident occurred.  Therefore, Arsenal established prima facie that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002];  Giovacco v. Graham, 213 A.D.3d 523, 524, 184 N.Y.S.3d 735 [1st Dept. 2023]).  Defendant 230 PAS SPE LLC did not raise a triable issue of fact because it did not present any evidence to show that Arsenal could be found liable under any Espinal exception (see Espinal, 98 N.Y.2d at 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485).

Defendants 230 PAS and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. fail to demonstrate that Arsenal's motion is premature (see Severinghaus v. TUFCO, Inc., 208 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 176 N.Y.S.3d 17 [1st Dept. 2022]).  Arsenal sufficiently established that it was not responsible for the lighting condition under the scaffolding, and 230 PAS and JPMorgan failed to show anything more than speculation that future discovery could reveal information relating to Arsenal's liability for the allegedly inadequate lighting condition.