532 MADISON AVE. v. Finlandia
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Citation | 727 N.Y.S.2d 49,750 N.E.2d 1097,96 N.Y.2d 280 |
Decision Date | 07 June 2001 |
Parties | 532 MADISON AVENUE GOURMET FOODS, INC., Respondent, v. FINLANDIA CENTER, INC., et al., Appellants. 5TH AVENUE CHOCOLATIERE, LTD., et al., Respondents, v. 540 ACQUISITION CO., L. L. C., et al., Appellants. GOLDBERG WEPRIN & USTIN, L. L. P., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Respondents. |
96 N.Y.2d 280
750 N.E.2d 1097
727 N.Y.S.2d 49
v.
FINLANDIA CENTER, INC., et al., Appellants.
5TH AVENUE CHOCOLATIERE, LTD., et al., Respondents,
v.
540 ACQUISITION CO., L. L. C., et al., Appellants.
GOLDBERG WEPRIN & USTIN, L. L. P., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant,
v.
TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Respondents
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued April 26, 2001.
Decided June 7, 2001.
Steven B. Sarshik, New York City, for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Jaroslawicz & Jaros, New York City (David Jaroslawicz of counsel), for appellant in the third above-entitled action.
Plunkett & Jaffe, P. C., New York City (Justin E. Driscoll, III, of counsel), for Universal Builders Supply, Inc., respondent in the third above-entitled action.
Judges SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY, ROSENBLATT and GRAFFEO concur.
Chief Judge KAYE.
The novel issues raised by these appeals—arising from construction-related disasters in midtown Manhattan—concern first, a landholder's duty in negligence where plaintiffs' sole injury is lost income and second, the viability of claims for public nuisance.
Two of the three appeals involve the same event. On December 7, 1997, a section of the south wall of 540 Madison Avenue, a 39-story office tower, partially collapsed and bricks, mortar and other material fell onto Madison Avenue at 55th Street, a prime commercial location crammed with stores and skyscrapers. The collapse occurred after a construction project, which included putting 94 holes for windows into the building's south wall, aggravated existing structural defects. New York City officials directed the closure of 15 heavily trafficked blocks on Madison Avenue—from 42nd to 57th Street—as well as adjacent side streets between Fifth and Park Avenues. The closure lasted for approximately two weeks, but some businesses nearest to 540 Madison remained closed for a longer period.
In 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr., plaintiff operates a 24-hour delicatessen one-half block south of 540 Madison, and was closed for five weeks. The two named plaintiffs in the companion case, 5th Ave. Chocolatiere v 540 Acquisition Co., are retailers at 510 Madison Avenue, two blocks from the building, suing on behalf of themselves and a putative class of "all other business entities, in whatever form, including but not limited to corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships, located in the Borough of Manhattan and bounded geographically on the west by Fifth Avenue, on the east by Park Avenue, on the north by 57th Street and on the South by 42nd Street." Plaintiffs allege that shoppers and
On defendants' motions in both cases, Supreme Court dismissed plaintiffs' negligence claims on the ground that they could not establish that defendants owed a duty of care for purely economic loss in the absence of personal injury or property damage, and dismissed the public nuisance claims on the ground that the injuries were the same in kind as those suffered by all of the businesses in the community. In 5th Ave. Chocolatiere, plaintiffs' additional claims for gross negligence and negligence per se were dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs could not establish a duty owed by defendants, and their private nuisance cause of action was dismissed on the ground that they could not establish either intentional or negligent wrongdoing.
Goldberg Weprin & Ustin v Tishman Constr. involves the July 21, 1998 collapse of a 48-story construction elevator tower on West 43rd Street between Sixth and Seventh Avenues—the heart of bustling Times Square. Immediately after the accident, the City prohibited all traffic in a wide area of midtown Manhattan and also evacuated nearby buildings for varying time periods. Three actions were consolidated—one by a law firm, a second by a public relations firm and a third by a clothing manufacturer, all situated within the affected area. Plaintiff law firm sought damages for economic loss on behalf of itself and a proposed class "of all persons in the vicinity of Broadway and 42nd Street, New York, New York, whose businesses were affected and/or caused to be closed" as well as a subclass of area residents who were evacuated from their homes. Plaintiff alleged gross negligence, strict liability, and public and private nuisance.
Noting the enormity of the liability sought, including recovery by putative plaintiffs as diverse as hot dog vendors, taxi drivers and Broadway productions, Supreme Court concluded that the failure to allege personal injury or property damage barred recovery in negligence. The court further rejected recovery for strict liability, and dismissed both the public nuisance claim (because plaintiff was unable to show special damages) and the private nuisance claim (because plaintiff could not show that the harm threatened only one person or relatively few).
We now reverse in 532 Madison and 5th Ave. Chocolatiere and affirm in Goldberg Weprin & Ustin.
Plaintiffs' Negligence Claims
Plaintiffs contend that defendants owe them a duty to keep their premises in reasonably safe condition, and that this duty extends to protection against economic loss even in the absence of personal injury or property damage. Defendants counter that the absence of any personal injury or property damage precludes plaintiffs' claims for economic injury.1
The existence and scope of a tortfeasor's duty is, of course, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 8026(PKC).
...Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc., 271 A.D.2d 49, 711 N.Y.S.2d 391 (1st Dep't 2000) (“Finlandia I ”), rev'd on other grounds,96 N.Y.2d 280, 289, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 (N.Y.2001) (“Finlandia II ”). A defendant is not liable to a plaintiff for economic loss unless there e......
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., Docket Nos. 10–4135–cv, 10–4329–cv.
...injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons.” 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 (2001). Exxon argues that the jury's rejection of the City's design-defect claim forecloses the City'......
-
In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
...calamity." Id. at 403, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 632, 441 P.3d 881 ; see, e.g. , 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc. , 96 N.Y.2d 280, 290, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 (2001) (declining to hold "that a landowner owes a duty to protect an entire urban neighborhood against ......
-
Lawrence v. O & G Indus., Inc., Nos. 19330
...and increased costs of operation from negligently caused blackout); 532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 290–92, 750 N.E.2d 1097, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2001) (trial court properly dismissed claims for economic losses arising from multiweek business clo......
-
Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 8026(PKC).
...Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc., 271 A.D.2d 49, 711 N.Y.S.2d 391 (1st Dep't 2000) (“Finlandia I ”), rev'd on other grounds,96 N.Y.2d 280, 289, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 (N.Y.2001) (“Finlandia II ”). A defendant is not liable to a plaintiff for economic loss unless there e......
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., Docket Nos. 10–4135–cv, 10–4329–cv.
...injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons.” 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 (2001). Exxon argues that the jury's rejection of the City's design-defect claim forecloses the City'......
-
In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 19-md-02913-WHO
...calamity." Id. at 403, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 632, 441 P.3d 881 ; see, e.g. , 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc. , 96 N.Y.2d 280, 290, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 (2001) (declining to hold "that a landowner owes a duty to protect an entire urban neighborhood against ......
-
Lawrence v. O & G Indus., Inc., Nos. 19330
...and increased costs of operation from negligently caused blackout); 532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 290–92, 750 N.E.2d 1097, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2001) (trial court properly dismissed claims for economic losses arising from multiweek business clo......
-
Court Dismisses Water Contamination Complaint For Failure To State A Cause Of Action Against Chemical PFAS Manufacturers
...large. A special injury has been defined as a "different and greater harm." Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280, (2001). However, as noted by the Court, New York follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts, whereby a defendant is liable for public or priv......
-
Court Dismisses Water Contamination Complaint For Failure To State A Cause Of Action Against Chemical PFAS Manufacturers
...large. A special injury has been defined as a "different and greater harm." Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280, (2001). However, as noted by the Court, New York follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts, whereby a defendant is liable for public or priv......