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.
Claire GRUPPO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gabrielle LONDON, Defendant-Appellant. [And a Third-Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2005, which, in an action for breach of contract and architectural malpractice, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability for architectural malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 373, 384, 795 N.Y.S.2d 502, 828 N.E.2d 604 [2005]; Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986] ) on the issue of defendant's liability for architectural malpractice. Her proof, including an affidavit from a licensed architect who had been involved in the design of the building affected by the alleged malpractice, established that although defendant was retained to investigate how plaintiff's apartment could be combined with an adjoining apartment into a single unit, and, in that connection, to conduct a survey of existing conditions and draw up working drawings and written specifications for the project, she instead devised a plan without reviewing the building's original plans or conducting a test probe on the wall whose demolition she proposed, which, proper investigation would have disclosed, was of a load-bearing or structural nature.
Defendant's opposition to summary judgment, consisting of no more than the unsubstantiated affirmation of counsel, who lacked personal knowledge of the facts, was insufficient to raise a triable issue (see JMD Holding Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 384-385, 795 N.Y.S.2d 502, 828 N.E.2d 604; Ruggiero v. Cardella Trucking Co., 16 A.D.3d 342, 344, 793 N.Y.S.2d 337 [2005] ). Nor was defendant's speculation that discovery might reveal grounds to impugn the credentials of plaintiff's expert and/or the basis for his knowledge, sufficient to avoid summary judgment (see White v. New York City Tr. Auth., 308 A.D.2d 341, 343, 764 N.Y.S.2d 90 [2003]; Jean v. Zong Hai Xu, 288 A.D.2d 62, 732 N.Y.S.2d 338 [2001] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 24, 2006
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)