| Weitz v Anzek Constr. Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07118 [54 AD3d 940] |
| September 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Adam Weitz et al., Respondents, v Anzek ConstructionCorporation et al., Respondents, and Steve & Andy, Inc., Appellant. (And a Third-PartyAction.) |
—[*1] Kitson, Kitson & Biesto, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (James R. Carcano of counsel), forplaintiffs-respondents. Penino & Moynihan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven J. Monn and Audrey Zwolski ofcounsel), for defendant-respondent Anzek Construction Corporation. Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mary Joseph of counsel), fordefendant-respondent Verticon, Ltd.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Steve & Andy, Inc.,appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated March 29, 2007,which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claimsinsofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff AdamWeitz (hereinafter Weitz) while performing construction work on property owned by thethird-party defendant East Ramapo School District (hereinafter ERSD). The defendant Verticon,Ltd. (hereinafter Verticon), was hired as the general contractor, and Paceline Construction Corp.was hired as the construction manager. It is unclear whether the defendant Anzek ConstructionCorporation (hereinafter Anzek) contracted directly with ERSD or was hired by Verticon as asubcontractor. The defendant Steve & Andy, Inc., a subcontractor on the project (hereinafter theappellant), moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofaras asserted against it, contending that it established, prima facie, that it lacked any role in the actsor omissions alleged to have caused Weitz's injuries.
The proof offered by the appellant in support of its motion was at best ambiguous as to itsrole and responsibilities. It thus failed to meet its burden of establishing, prima facie, itsentitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the appellant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it was properlydenied, notwithstanding the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see generally Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]).
In light of this determination, we need not consider the parties' remaining contentions.Lifson, J.P., Florio, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.