| D & D of Delhi, Inc. v Village of Delhi |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00329 [47 AD3d 1117] |
| January 17, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| D & D of Delhi, Inc., Respondent, v Village of Delhi,Appellant. |
—[*1] Hiscock & Barclay, Albany (David M. Cost of counsel), for respondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered May 17,2007 in Delaware County, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint.
In 1978, plaintiff, an auto parts store, hired a plumber to install a four-inch lateral water linethat ran from its building to the adjacent public water main so that water would be available for aplanned water sprinkler system that, in fact, was never installed. Notably, the part of the line thatentered the building itself was never equipped with an interior shutoff valve and it remained openand uncapped. Nevertheless, when defendant's employees connected the lateral line to the publicwater main, they installed a shutoff valve at the main junction that served to prevent water fromentering the lateral line and running into the building.
Subsequently, in June 2004, a nearby public water main ruptured. In response, David Curley,a public works employee, arrived at the scene. The maps reviewed by Curley reportedly did notshow the lateral line leading to plaintiff's building. Consequently, due to his belief that thesubject valve would stop the flow of water through the main line and help isolate the water mainbreak, he turned the valve. As a result, rather than stopping the water flow, turning the valveforced water to flow from the main line through the lateral line and into the building, causingsubstantial property damage.
Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that the damages were due to defendant's negligencein maintaining and repairing the water main. Supreme Court denied defendant's [*2]motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, promptingthis appeal.
Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the complaint should bedismissed on the basis of governmental immunity. When a municipality acts in a proprietary asopposed to a governmental capacity, it is generally subject "to the same duty of care as privateindividuals and institutions engaging in the same activity" (Schrempf v State of NewYork, 66 NY2d 289, 294 [1985]; see Johnson City Cent. School Dist. v Fidelity &Deposit Co. of Md., 272 AD2d 818, 820 [2000]). The maintenance and repair of water mainsis traditionally performed by private businesses, such as water companies and, thus, where amunicipality maintains a water system to provide water to private customers, it constitutes aproprietary function (see De Witt Props. v City of New York, 44 NY2d 417, 423-424[1978]; Layer v City of Buffalo, 274 NY 135, 139 [1937]; Canavan v City ofMechanicville, 229 NY 473, 476 [1920]). Accordingly, inasmuch as defendant wasperforming a proprietary action at the relevant time, defendant's invocation of the rule requiring aplaintiff to demonstrate a special relationship between it and a municipality in order tocommence suit has no application herein (see Schrempf v State of New York, 66 NY2dat 294).
Turning to the merits, we conclude that Supreme Court appropriately denied defendant'smotion for summary judgment. While defendant maintains that plaintiff's failure to cap the lateralline was in violation of its statutory duty to maintain the line in good repair[FN*] and the sole proximate cause of the damages, we cannot agree that the record establishes itsentitlement to dismissal as a matter of law. Contrary to defendant's contention, even if it wereestablished that plaintiff violated this provision by failing to cap the line, said finding would onlybe evidence of negligence and would not bar plaintiff from recovery as a matter of law but,rather, would be relevant with respect to the question of comparative fault (see CPLR1411; DiSilvestro v Samler, 32AD3d 987, 989 [2006]). Significantly, the record, including the deposition testimony ofCurley, raises questions of fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to safely maintain andrepair the water main, as well as the level of fault, if any, that can be attributed to it (see e.g.Palmer Adv. Serv., Inc. v Grinnell Co., Inc., 247 App Div 765 [1936], affd 272 NY487 [1936]; see also Garrido v City ofNew York, 9 AD3d 267, 268 [2004]). Thus, we find no basis to reverse.
The remaining arguments raised by defendant have been examined and found to beunpersuasive.
Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Footnote *: Village Law § 11-1112(1) states that "[s]upply pipes, connecting with mains and used by private owners or occupants,shall be laid and kept in repair at their expense."