SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD v. Bernice Waldorf, etc., et al., Defendants. (2011)

SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, as Subrogee of Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCHITRON DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Bernice Waldorf, etc., et al., Defendants.

Decided: March 08, 2011

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, MANZANET-DANIELS, JJ.

Gennet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, P.C., New York (Donald G. Sweetman of counsel), for appellant. McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick W. Brophy of counsel), for Architron Designers and Builders, Inc., respondent. Law Offices of Michael E. Pressman, New York (Eric S. Fenyes of counsel), for J.J.H. Construction Corp., respondent. Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for 360 West 28th Street, LLC and Mitchell Hirth, respondents. Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Joseph V. Cambareri of counsel), for Van Jay Brody respondents. Gogick, Byrne & O'Neill, LLP, New York (John Rondello of counsel), for Jack William Mendelson, P.E. and JWM Consulting, respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered March 13, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendants Van Jay Brody, R.A., and Van Jan Brody, Architect, P.C. (collectively, Brody), and Jack William Mendelson, P.E. and JWM Consulting (collectively, Mendelson) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff contends that Brody's and Mendelson's alleged failure to comply with certain Building Code provisions, including former Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 27-157 (repealed Local Law No. 33 [2007], eff July 1, 2008), governing the filing of architectural and structural plans constitutes evidence of negligence on their part. However, these provisions require the filing of plans but do not provide any substantive standards specifying, for example, when shoring may be required in an excavation project. Hence, plaintiff cannot show a causal relationship between its alleged loss and any negligence on Brody's or Mendelson's part in failing to file allegedly “complete” plans (see Driscoll v. Tower Assoc., 16 AD3d 311, 313 [2005]; see also Miller v. Astucci U.S. Ltd., 2007 WL 102092, *9, 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 4436, *28 [SD N.Y.2007] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments, including those based upon the assertions of its expert engineer, and find them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network