| Ledesma v Aragona Mgt. Group |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03694 [50 AD3d 510] |
| April 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Lorenza Ledesma, Plaintiff, v Aragona Management Groupet al., Defendants. Aragona Management Group et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, vEmpire State Fuel Oil Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And a Second Third-PartyAction.) Aragona Management Group et al., Third Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v AbettaBoiler & Welding Service, Inc., Third Third-PartyDefendant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for Empire State Fuel Oil Corp.,respondent. Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York (Jeanne M. Boyle of counsel), for Abetta Boiler &Welding Service, Inc., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered August 15, 2007,which granted the motions of third-party defendant Empire State Fuel Oil Corp. (Empire Fuel)and third third-party defendant Abetta Boiler & Welding Service, Inc. (Abetta Boiler) forsummary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints and all cross claims as against them,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Empire Fuel and Abetta Boiler in thisaction where plaintiff was injured when she lost her balance and fell in the shower when [*2]there was a sudden increase in the hot water temperature and waterpressure. The building owner and property manager, defendants Wadsworth Associates 9 andAragona Management Group (appellants) did not have a service contract with either Empire Fuelor Abetta Boiler to maintain or service the building's boiler, and "[i]n the absence of a contractfor routine or systematic maintenance, an independent repairer/contractor has no duty to installsafety devices or to inspect or warn of any purported defects" (Daniels v Kromo Lenox Assoc., 16AD3d 111, 112 [2005]).
The evidence also fails to establish negligence by either Empire Fuel or Abetta Boiler in theservices they performed on the subject boiler (see Kleinberg v City of New York, 27 AD3d 317 [2006]).Appellants' contention that Abetta Boiler's replacement of a corroded boiler coil less than a weekprior to plaintiff's accident warranted an adjustment of the mixing valve, is unsupported byevidence that such coil was corroded, and, in any event, complaints regarding fluctuations in thewater temperature and pressure were lodged well before Abetta Boiler's work on the boiler.Abetta Boiler was only hired to replace the coil, and there was no evidence that the newlyinstalled coil was defective, or improperly installed. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman,Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32509(U).]