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.
1309 Avenue P, LLC, respondent-appellant, v. Lewis Eliezer Garfinkel, etc., appellant-respondent.
Argued—April 28, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for architectural malpractice and breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated May 26, 2010, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover lost profits, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover lost profits, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant.
The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover lost profits that the plaintiff alleged it could have obtained from the construction of a six-story, rather than a four-story, building. The defendant established as a matter of law that the this claim was too speculative, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff would have been able to obtain approval to construct a six-story building (see Hudson Eng'g Assoc. v. Kramer, 204 A.D.2d 277, 277–278; Brown v. Samalin & Bock, 168 A.D.2d 531, 532; see generally Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 403; Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 67 N.Y.2d 257, 262; Reads Co., LLC v. Katz, 72 AD3d 1054, 1055).
However, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff's submissions revealed that triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to the defendant's liability (see QB, LLC v. A/R Architects, LLP, 19 AD3d 675, 677, citing Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey & Co. Inc.], 3 NY3d 538, 542, and 17 Vista Fee Assoc. v Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn of Am., 259 A.D.2d 75, 83).
RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, FLORIO and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–05793 (Index No. 22347/08)
Decided: May 31, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)