| Georgotas v Laro Maintenance Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07863 [55 AD3d 666] |
| October 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| George Georgotas, Appellant, v Laro Maintenance Corporationet al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] White, Quinlan & Staley, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (William R. White of counsel), for respondentLaro Maintenance Corporation. O'Connor, O'Connor, Hintz & Deveney, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), forrespondent DeBenedittis Landscaping, Inc. Zaklukiewicz Puzo & Morrissey, LLP, Islip Terrace, N.Y. (Joseph M. Puzo of counsel), forrespondent Parkview Landscaping Co.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated February 13,2007, as granted the motion of the defendant DeBenedittis Landscaping, Inc., for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, granted that branch of the cross motion of thedefendant Laro Maintenance Corporation which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against it, and granted the separate motion of the defendant Parkview LandscapingCo. pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it astime-barred.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court correctly granted the motion of the defendant DeBenedittis Landscaping, [*2]Inc. (hereinafter DeBenedittis), for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against it and correctly granted that branch of the cross motion of thedefendant Laro Maintenance Corp. (hereinafter Laro) which was for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against it. A contractor or subcontractor's limited contractual undertakingto provide snow removal services generally does not give rise to a duty of care to persons not a partyto the contract, absent evidence that the contractor or subcontractor assumed a comprehensivemaintenance obligation, created or exacerbated a dangerous condition or launched a force orinstrument of harm, or that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the contractor's continued performance ofits obligation (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]; Wheaton v East End Commons Assoc.,LLC, 50 AD3d 675, 677 [2008]; Baratta v Home Depot USA, 303 AD2d 434,434-435 [2003]). Here, the defendants Laro and DeBenedittis established, prima facie, that they didnot assume a comprehensive and exclusive maintenance obligation at the premises. The contractbetween the property owner and Laro expressly provided that it was nonexclusive and that the owner'son-site property manager was to oversee various aspects of snow-removal operations and othermaintenance work. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact demonstrating thatLaro or DeBenedittis assumed a comprehensive maintenance obligation giving rise to a duty of care tothird parties (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 141; Linarello v ColinServ. Sys., Inc., 31 AD3d 396, 397 [2006]; Mahaney v Neuroscience Ctr., 28 AD3d 432, 433 [2006]; Parker v Rust Plant Servs., Inc., 9 AD3d671, 673-674 [2004]; Torella v Benderson Dev. Co., 307 AD2d 727, 728 [2003]).
Laro and DeBenedettis also made a prima facie showing that they did not create or exacerbate adangerous condition or launch a force or instrumentality of harm, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triableissue of fact in opposition to that showing. There was no evidence that these defendants performedsnow-removal work in the area where the plaintiff fell (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98NY2d at 139; Castro v Maple RunCondominium Assn., 41 AD3d 412, 413-414 [2007]; Mahaney v NeuroscienceCtr., 28 AD3d at 434; Katz v PathmarkStores, Inc., 19 AD3d 371, 372 [2005]; Maldonado v Novartis Pharms. Corp., 18 AD3d 720, 721 [2005]; Zabbia v Westwood, LLC, 18 AD3d542, 544 [2005]; Gaitan v RegionalMaintenance Corp., 6 AD3d 495, 496 [2004]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Angiolillo,JJ., concur.