——/—/ Stanimar Nenadovic, / Plaintiff, v. << (2011)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

——/—/ Stanimar Nenadovic, / Plaintiff, v.
P.T. Tenants Corp., now known as Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., et al., Defendants, Liberty Architectural Products Co., Inc. Defendant–Appellant, Tractel, Inc., Defendant–Respondent. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., sued herein as P.T. Tenants Corp., etc., et al., Third–Party Plaintiffs, v. A–Tech Environmental Restoration, Inc., Third–Party Defendant–Appellant. [And Other Third–Party Actions]

5067N 5068N 5909 58 07 5069N 4005 95 08 5070N 5902 11 08

Decided: May 12, 2011

Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Moskowitz, Freedman, JJ.

Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains (Ephraim J. Fink of counsel), for Liberty Architectural Products Co., Inc., appellant. McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Aoife Reid of counsel), for A–Tech Environmental Restoration, Inc., appellant. McCarter & English, LLP, New York (Reneé A. Gallagher of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 5, 2010, which granted defendant Tractel's motion for a protective order, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied, and the destructive testing set forth in the protocol permitted, with defendant Tractel permitted to have a representative present during the testing at the expense of Liberty and A–Tech jointly, including reasonable travel and hotel expenses, and to receive a copy of the report of the test results. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 11, 2011, which granted the motions for reargument of defendant Liberty and third-party defendant A–Tech, and upon reargument adhered to its prior determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Liberty and A–Tech made a sufficient showing that the destructive testing set forth in the protocol was material and necessary to their defense of the actions, as well as the cross claims for contribution and indemnification asserted by Tractel, and that they would be prejudiced if they were not permitted to perform the tests (see Castro v. Alden Leeds, Inc., 116 A.D.2d 549, 550 [1986] ). The protocol specified the precise tests to be performed and the affidavits of their experts indicated the extent to which each test would alter or destroy the scaffold, whose failure caused the injuries to plaintiffs. The experts noted the specific observations which suggested that the scaffold's failure might be attributed to improper design or fabrication of the scaffold. The fact that the condition of the scaffold may have been altered by the passage of time or exposure to the elements may be considered by the fact-finder in assessing the weight to accord the test results. From the record, it appears that Liberty and A–Tech will be unable to properly defend themselves without the proposed testing. There is no dispute that numerous photographs of the scaffold exist which will enable the fact-finder to assess its condition prior to the testing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

CLERK

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