110 West 123 Street Realty Associates, LLC v. High Power Construction Corp.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered December 23, 2015, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that its acts and/or omissions did not cause or contribute to the collapse of plaintiff’s building (see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Triable issues of fact exist as to the nature and scope of defendant’s involvement in the renovation work at that premises. Third-party defendant Artour Kagulian, whose work is alleged to have caused and/or contributed to the collapse, identified himself as a manager employed by defendant to run the project, which work defendant was to review on a weekly basis. Furthermore, two permits were issued to defendant for the project, for which defendant was paid, and defendant insured the work.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.