Wesco Ins. Co. v. Sean Coakley Plumbing & Heating Inc.

Full text

Wesco Ins. Co. v Sean Coakley Plumbing & Heating Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 31131(U) April 2, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151362/2023 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

INDEX NO. 151362/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MA RY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice ------------------------------ ----------------- -------------·· .......... X INDEX NO. 151362/2023 WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY on its own behalf And as subrogee of PHILIP'S SENIOR HOUSE LLC and MOTION DATE 05/09/2023 PHtLI PS SENIOR HOUSE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORP., MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

Plaintiff.

-v- DECISION + ORDER ON SEAN COAKLEY PLUMBING & HEATING I NC., MOTION

Defendant. --------- ----------------------- --- --- ------ --- -------- --- -------- ---- -------- --X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number {Motjon 001) 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12 13. 14. 15, 16, 17, 18. 19, 20, 21. 22, 23 we re read on this motion totfo r DISMISS

Upon the foregoing documents) and after oral argument which took place on October 17,

2023 wilh Christopher A. Wong, Esq. appearing for Plaintiff Wc~eo ln~urancc Company

('·Plaintiff') on its own behalf and as subrogcc of Philip) s Senior I louse LLC and Philips Senjor

House Housing Development Fund Corp. (together "Philip~"), and Kimhcrly A. Miller. Esq.

appearing for Defendant Scan Coakley PJumbing & Heating lnc. CD~fondanl''), DefenJanl's

motion f~)r an Or<l~r di~mis~ing Pbintiff ~ Complaint (NYSCLI.- I.Joe. 7) pursuant to CPLR

321 l (a)(7) and 3211 (a)( I): is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background and Procedural History

Philips O\\TI a residential apartm~nt building located at 220 \Vest LBnJ StreeL, Harlem (the

"Premises") (NYSCFF Doc. 7 at , 3). Plainli ff alleges that on Junc 24. 2019 Philips contracted

with Defendant to remove exi ~ting float sv,,-itches anJ w supply and lo im:iall three new float

151J6212023 WES CO INSURANCE COMPANY 11s, SEAN COAKLEY PLU MBf~G & HEATING INC, P.;ige 1 □ f 7 Motion No. {101

[* 1] 1 of 7

INDEX NO. 151362/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

&\:\'itches, lloal balls and fittings to the roof-top water tank at the Premises (NYSCF.F Doc. 7 at ii

6).

On February 10, 2023 Plaintiff ~ommcnccd this action to recover for property damage

re.';uHing from a leak in a roof-top water tank al Lh~ Premises (NY SCEF Ooc. 7). Plaintiff alleges

that the water leak an<l resulting damage were caused by Defendant's fail urc to install properly the

float swjtches to a high/lmv \Vatcr alarm system or automatic cut-off switch (NYSCEf Doc. 7 at 1

13).

Pbintifrs Complaint asserts three cause~ of oction against Defendant: (1) negligent

installation of three float switches and failing to connect them to u high/low water alarm or

automatic cu.L-off switch; (2) breach of contract and implied warranty to use reasonable care; and

(3) nuisance and interference with lhe use and enjoyment of the premises (NYSCEF Doc. 7).

On May 9, 2023 Dctcndant commence<l lhc instant motion to dismiss PJainlilrs Complaint

pursuantto CPLR 3211 (a)(7) le.ff (ai Iurc to state a cause of action, and pursuant to CPL 3211 (a)( I)

asseiiing defenses founded upon documentary evidence (l\YSCEf Docs. 5-6) 1• In the al t~mative)

Defendant moves for leave to renew, reargue, or resubmit its motion for summary judgment at the

close of all discovery (l\YSCEF Doc. 5).

In opposttjon to Defendant's motion) Plaintiff argues that its Complaint alleges sufficient

facts to state a claim for negligence, breach of contract and nuisance {NYSCF.F Doc. 21 ). Further,

Pfaint1 ff argues that the supporting documents provided by Defendant in support of their motion

to dismiss do nol constitute "documentary evidence" for purposes or CPLR 321 l(a)(l) (NYSCFF

1 While lJefendant's Notice of Motion {NYSCEF Doc. 5) ~tatcs only that Defendant move~ for dismiss11l pursuant to CPLl{ 3211 (a)(7), Pl~intiff's Affinnation in Support (NYSCEF Doc. 6) .ilso request.'> dismissal pursuant to CPT .R 321 I {a}( I).

1S1362/2023 WESCO INS URA f\,I CE: COMPANY vs. SEAN COAKLEY PLUMBING & HEATING INC. Page 2 ot 7 Motion No. 001

INDEX NO. 151362/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

as it was here, '·before an answer is interposed or pr~servcd in a responsive pleading" (M & E 73-

75, !IC v 5 7 Fusion U.C l H9 A D:ld l. 6 11 st Dept 20201).

Herc, Defendant submitted the Affidavits of Steve Pietropaolo (~YSCFF Doc. 14) and

Sean Coakley (NYSCF.F Doc. 1 l) in support of the instant motion. which do not constitute

documentary evidence for purposes of CPLR 3211 (a)(l) {see S.M. v MQdura, 223 AlJ3d 486, 487

[I st Dept 2024] (holding thflt an affidavit ··does not constitute documentary evidence providing a

basis for dismissal under CPI .R 32 l l (a)( l )). Further 1 the Court finds that Defendant's invoice from

the installation of the Hoat sv,.:itches (NYSCFF Doc:. l 3) fa1ls to un<lrniahly and definitively rcfotc

PJajntiffs claims (J\YSCEF Doc. 7 at•· 13).

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Pluinlifrs Complaint pursuant 10 CPLR

321 l (a)(l) is deni~d. 2

Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDLRED that Defendant Scan Coakley Plumbing & lleating Inc.' s motion to dismiss

Plainlifrs FirsL CalL<i-e or Action for negligence and Third Cause of Action for Private Ntlisancc is denied~ and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant Scan Coakley Plumbing & Heating Inc.'s motion to dismiss

Plciintiff s Second Cause of Action for br~m.::h of contract is granted; and it is further

[The remainder of this pagr: is intenliorwlty lefi hlankj

~ Finding that Lh.: dncumcnt:.uy evidence pmikrt:d by Ddc[ldacH faib lo r<:folc undeniably PlaituLffs daims. and gi\·en Plainli frs as~i.:nion that it in lends Lo further <lispulc lJcfcndanc's comcnth:ins after the parties h.ive ha<l ~n orrortuniLy w cxchsngc Ji~~o\·cry and conduct dcpo5i[ions (~Y SU:1.- Uoc. 20 at 'I 6), ~he Court declines to convert Dct\:-ndanL 's moliun 10 disrniss lo one for ~urnmary judgment, as the record does not demonstr;ite that the parties "delibemtety chan[ ed] .i siimm.iry j11dgment course•· (~ec Flsky v Hearst Corp., 232 t\D'.!s 310 l l sL D(:pt 1996]). As such, leave from th~ Court is not nec~ssary for Dcfrnda:nl lo bring a motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery.

1613 S²/20:2.'.l WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SEAN COAKLEY PLUMBING & HEATING INC, Page -6 of 7 Motion No. 0{11

[* 6] 6 of 7

INDEX NO. 151362/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

ORDERLO that the parties are directed to submit a proposed Preliminary Conference

Order to the court on or before April 30. 2024. If the parties are unahlc to agree to a proposed

Prdirninary Conference Order, the parties arc directed to appear for an in-person preliminary

conference wilh the Court on \fay 1. 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in 60 Centre Street, Room 442, New York,

New York; and it is further

ORDFRFD that \Vithjn ten {10) days of entT)", coum:cl for Defendant Sean Coakley

Pf um hi ng & H cati ng Inc. sha 11 ~erve a rnp y of this Dccisi on and Order, \Vil h noti cc of en try, on

Plaintiff Wesco Insuram::e Company; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment acc:orJingly.

This constimles the Decision and Order of the Court.

4f2/2024 --L--'l,ft"--1.. ~- Y.& ..- J'i c. DATE HON. MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C.

CHECK: ONE: CASE Dl5 PO 5!= Cl x NON-F INAl DI 5P0SI TIOfll

□ DENI ED x GRANTED IN PAR.T □ OTHER APPLICATION; SETTLE Ofl0ER SU'Br.llT 0R □ ER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE; ll'IIClUOES TRANSF ERIREASSI GN Fl Cl UC IA RY APPOINTMENT

15138212-023 VVESCO INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SEAN COAKLEY PLUMBING & HEAT,NG INC. Page 7 of 7 Moll on No. 001

[* 7] 7 of 7

Footnotes

[2] of 7 [* 2] Doc. 2] al 2), I ,ast l y, Plaintiff arg ucs that Dcfcnda nf s motion for summary j u<lgm~n l is prcma turc as issue has not yet hccn joined in this action (1\-YSCEF Doc. 21 at 2). II. Discussion A. Defendant's Motion w Dismjss_ Pursuant to CPLR 321 Ha)(7) Pursuant to CPLR 32: 1 1(a)(7): "I a I party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground lhat ... the pleading fails to state a cause of action .... " In consi<l~ring a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)( 7 ), "the court must give the plc-ading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and afford the plaintiff the bene (i.l or ~very possible favorable inference·• (J.P. ll,forgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant ins. Co. 21 NY3d 324. 334 [20131). ··[T]he soJe criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action) and therefore if from il~ four c:orners (actual al lcgat[ons arc discerned v,.:hich i r taken together can manife!-il any cause of action, a motion fol' djsmissal must fail" (Kushe1· i' Kin~ 126 AD2d 446,467 fl st Dept 19871). L Defendant's l\fotion to Dismiss Plaintiffs first Cause of Aclion for Ncg.ligcncc is D_cttkd lt is well establ i -:;heJ lhat '·[_t lo state a clatm for negligence, a plaintiff must sufficiently al leg~ ( l) a duty; (2) a breach of that duly~ (3) causation; and ( 4) actual injury" (Aelna Life Ins. Co. v Appalachian AsYd Mgr Corp. 110 AD3d 32, 42-43 [1 sL n~pt 2013 !). I Iere, Plaintiff's Complaint satisfies aH of the elements of a cause of action for negligence by flrst aUeging that Defendant violak<l its <luty to Plaintiff by failing lo in~tall or connect any of· the three (3) new float switches to a high/low ,~,rater alann system or an automatic cut-off switch (~ Y SCEl;" Doc. 7 at 1 8). F urlhcr, Plaintiffs Complaint aUeges thal Defendant acted negligently \Vhcn it failed to use rea5onabk care in the instaJla.tion or th~ Lhrcc (3} new float sv,itche-:; (l\YSCLF Doc. 7 at l 0). Plainli rr s Complaint sufficiently al leg es the requisite causation by 15135:?12023 WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY v::;, SEAN COAKLEY PLUMBING & HEATING INC. Page 3 of7 Motion No. 001

[3] of 7 [* 3] alleging thal Defendant's ni.:gUgcnce was the sole proximate caus~ ohvatcr damagG to the Premises (NYSCEr Doc. 7 '1.t ,r.-12-13). Finally, Plaintiffs Complaint satisfies the t·ourth element required for a cause of action for negligence by alleging that hy r~a~on of Dcfcndan( s negligence, Plainli ff has suffered damages in the sum of $858,276.70 {NYSCEF Doc. 7 al ~ 15). in light of the foregoing, am.lrding Plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference:, the C: ourl finds that P1ai nti ff has sufficiently stated a ca use of action for nc gh gcncc. Acco rd ingly, Defcndanr s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs cause of action for negligence, pursuant to CPLR

[32] I l (a )(7), is denied. u. Defendant's .\-lotion to Dismis~ Plaintifrs Second Cause of Action ftff Breach of ~ ontract is Granted The First Department has held that .. ft]o state a cause or action for breach of contract, a plaintiff must aHcgc: ( 1) the parties entered into a valid agreement, (2) plaintiff perform~d, (J) defendant foiled to pcrfi:mn) and (4) damages" ( VisionChina ,;\4edia inc. v Shareholder Representative Servs., LLC. 109 AD3d 49, 58 11 st Dept 2012]). further, a breach of contract claim should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action where a plaintiff i~fail[s] to aHegc the breach of any particular contract prnvision'· {Kraus v Vi.Ha Int 'l Scrv. Ass 'n, 304 AD2d 408 f 1st Dept 20031). Herc 1 Plaintiffs Complaint fails to stmc a cause of action for hwach oC contract as the Complaint fails to allege the breach of any panicubr contract provision and fails lo allege that Plai nti ff pcrfo rmcd any of its ob l igal ions un dcr the alleged con Lruc: L. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Second Cau~c of Action for breach of contract js granted. [The remainder of this page is infentionally left blank] 151362/202 3 WES CO INSURANCE COMP A flJY vs. SEAN COAKLEY PLUMBING & HEA I I flJ O INC. Page-4 of7 M otior, No. CID1 [* 4] 4 of 7 iii. Defendant· s Motion lo Dismiss Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action for Prival~ Nui~ance is Denied To stare a rn us~ o (' action frlr private nuisance a plaintiff must al lcgc ''(I) an interleren cc substantial in narurc, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character. (4) with a person's property right to use (md enjoy land, (5) caused by another's conducl in acting or failure to act" (61 W. 62 Owner.\· Cnrp. v CGM EMI' LLC. 77 AD3d 330, 334 f 1st Dept 201 OJ). Herc, Plaintiff sa ti~ ri es the aho vc cl cmcnts by all egl ng Lhal De fc ndan t 's negligence t::auscd a roof-top water tank to overflow· and drain into the Premises (md its~ lcvator shafts, substantially and unreasonably interfering with Plaintiffs suhrogor's right to use and enjoy the Premises (NYSCEF Doc. 7}. Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Caus~ or Action for privute nuisance, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a.)(7)~ is denied. D. Defendunt 's Motion t_q __Dismiss Pur~uant to CPL_R 3211 (a)( 1) CPJ ,R 321 l (a)( l) states that a puny ··may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that a defense is founded upon documentary evidence.·, It is well settled Ihat a motion to dismiss bw,cJ on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (u)(l) is appropriately granle<l only when the documenLary evidence utterly refutes the plaint1 ff s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matler o (-law ( Cioshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. t~{ New York, 98 NY2d 3 l4 {2002]). The documentary evidence must be unambiguou~, of undisputed authentic:ity, and its content<;, must he csscntiaUy unJ.eniahlc {VX/ Lux Holdco S.A. R. l .. v SJC Holdings. !JI', l 71 AlJ}d 189. 193 [_1st Dept 2019]). Preliminarily. while Plaintiff argues that Defendant's motion to dismiss punmanl to CPU{ 3211 (a)( 1) is premature because issue in this action has not yet been join~d, thal argument is unavailing as the First Department has made clear that a CPLR 321 l(a)(l) motion must be made, 16136212023- WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY vs, SEAN COAKLEY PLUMBING & HE.A llNG INC. Page 5 of7 Motion No. tl01 5 of 7 [* 5]