FFPLLC recently secured a complete dismissal of all claims against Baisiles Interiors, Inc. in a complex multi-party construction litigation action in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. In a 23-page detailed Decision and Order, the court (Hon. Leslie A. Stroth) granted Baisiles’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the second third-party complaint and all crossclaims asserted against it.
 
The litigation arises from claims by the Board of Managers of the A Building Condominium alleging widespread design and construction defects in a residential building in Manhattan. The construction manager, Hudson Meridian Construction Group ("Hudson") asserted multiple third-party claims against various subcontractors involved in the project, including Baisiles, which performed interior carpentry work. Hudson’s primary theory of liability, and the central focus of Baisiles’ summary judgment motion, was Hudson’s breach of contract claim.
 
The court dismissed the breach of contract claim after finding that Hudson failed to establish any actionable breach by Baisiles. Baisiles demonstrated that it completed its scope of work, was paid in full and was never directed to return to address deficiencies. Critically, the record contained no evidence tying any claimed construction defect to Baisiles’ work. Hudson relied heavily on engineering reports that did not attribute any defects to Baisiles, and punch lists that were undated, unlabeled and failed to show that any listed items remained unresolved. The court held these submissions were insufficient to raise an issue of fact. It further held that Hudson’s allegations in the complaint were conclusory and unsupported and that the submissions offered in opposition did not cure those deficiencies or establish how Baisiles breached the contract.
 
The court also dismissed each of Hudson’s remaining claims for negligence, breach of warranties, contractual indemnification, failure to procure insurance, common-law indemnification and contribution on independent legal grounds, fully removing Baisiles from the litigation.
 
This decision reinforces that breach of contract claims against subcontractors must be grounded in concrete admissible proof of a specific contractual obligation and a demonstrable breach. General allegations of defective construction and broad expert reports are insufficient absent evidence linking the alleged defect to the subcontractor’s actual work. In securing this result, we methodically demonstrated that Hudson could not identify a single defect attributable to Baisiles. By highlighting the absence of proof and conclusory nature of Hudson’s claims, we positioned this case for summary judgment and secured a complete dismissal of all claims against our client.            

Congratulations to Liliya Nesterov who represented Baisiles.

Hudson was represented by Pillinger Miller Tarallo LLP.

In this construction defect case, the plaintiff, owner of the Harriet Tubman Gardens Apartment Corporation, sued the sponsor, Bluestone Organization and the our client, York Restoration Corporation. York was a subcontractor retained by the general contractor to repair leaks in the façade of the building pursuant to the plans and specifications prepared by architect, Arthur Kahane Architect PC. Plaintiff alleged leaks continued after York completed its work. Our position was that York had no liability because it performed its work correctly and in accordance with Kahane’s plans as required by its subcontract. Plaintiff and Bluestone argued that a 2016 field investigation report by plaintiff’s expert raised issues of fact as to whether York’s work was defective. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision, which denied our motion, and  granted our motion, dismissing our client from the action. 

​Nothing in the report of plaintiff’s expert said York’s work was defective, or that York was in breach of its contract or Banta’s or Kahane’s specifications. The only criticism was the scope of the repairs and that caulk should not have been specified, both of which were Kahane’s responsibility. There was no conflicting expert report or opinion.
 
New York case law in every department holds that where a contractor is bound to follow plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for defects in the plans and specifications. Where, as here, an owner or its agents certified that a contractor’s work was completed according to the contract the contractor is entitled to summary judgment. We cited MG Hotel, Gray v. RL Best and numerous other cases.
 
In sum, we argued, and the Court agreed, that York met its burden of establishing that it performed its contractual obligations without exception and Plaintiff’s own expert did not fault York’s work. York established and it was undisputed, that York had no independent obligations other than to do what Kahane told it to do and do it to Kahane’s satisfaction and obtain Kahane’s approval.
 

Fern Flomenhaft won a defense verdict in a slip anD fall case following a 3 week trial in Supreme Court, New York County, before Judge Lyle Frank. The plaintiff, a 50 year old woman, sustained a comminuted patella fracture which was surgically repaired in a fall on the ADA Pedestrian plate at the corner curb cut of our client's building. Although  she alleged she fell due to water that she alleged came from a condensation tube installed by our client's mercantile tenant, the plaintiff was not able to establish that water from the tube was emitted on the day of accident or that water on the ADA Pedestrian plate on the corner came from the tube. 

The co-defendant mercantile tenant, represented by Steven Cohen, Esq., also prevailed at trial. 

Plaintiff was represented by Jeffrey Schulman, Esq. of  Liner LLP.