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.
Lorenza LEDESMA, Plaintiff, v. ARAGONA MANAGEMENT GROUP, et al., Defendants.
Aragona Management Group, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Empire State Fuel Oil Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
[And a Second Third Party Action] Aragona Management Group, et al., Third Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Abetta Boiler & Welding Service, Inc., Third Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered August 15, 2007, which granted the motions of third-party defendant Empire State Fuel Oil Corp. (Empire Fuel) and third third-party defendant Abetta Boiler & Welding Service, Inc. (Abetta Boiler) for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Empire Fuel and Abetta Boiler in this action where plaintiff was injured when she lost her balance and fell in the shower when there was a sudden increase in the hot water temperature and water pressure. The building owner and property manager, defendants Wadsworth Associates 9 and Aragona Management Group (appellants) did not have a service contract with either Empire Fuel or Abetta Boiler to maintain or service the building's boiler, and “[i]n the absence of a contract for routine or systematic maintenance, an independent repairer/contractor has no duty to install safety devices or to inspect or warn of any purported defects” (Daniels v. Kromo Lenox Assoc., 16 A.D.3d 111, 112, 791 N.Y.S.2d 17 [2005] ).
The evidence also fails to establish negligence by either Empire Fuel or Abetta Boiler in the services they performed on the subject boiler (see Kleinberg v. City of New York, 27 A.D.3d 317, 811 N.Y.S.2d 642 [2006] ). Appellants' contention that Abetta Boiler's replacement of a corroded boiler coil less than a week prior to plaintiff's accident warranted an adjustment of the mixing valve, is unsupported by evidence that such coil was corroded, and, in any event, complaints regarding fluctuations in the water temperature and pressure were lodged well before Abetta Boiler's work on the boiler. Abetta Boiler was only hired to replace the coil, and there was no evidence that the newly installed coil was defective, or improperly installed.
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.
Decided: April 24, 2008
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)