Golden v. Condominium, 2614.

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 770 N.Y.S.2d 55,2003 NY Slip Op 19868,2 A.D.3d 345
• Docket Number: 2614.,2615.
• Parties: JEAN S. GOLDEN et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. MANHASSET CONDOMINIUM et al., Appellants-Respondents, and ALLIED FIRE CONTROL SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants, and VILES CONTRACTING CORP. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. JEAN S. GOLDEN et al., Respondents, v. MANHASSET CONDOMINIUM et al., Appellants, and FIESTA MEXICANA, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 30 December 2003

2 A.D.3d 345 770 N.Y.S.2d 55 2003 NY Slip Op 19868 JEAN S. GOLDEN et al., Respondents-Appellants,
v.
MANHASSET CONDOMINIUM et al., Appellants-Respondents, and ALLIED FIRE CONTROL SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants, and VILES CONTRACTING CORP. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
JEAN S. GOLDEN et al., Respondents,
v.
MANHASSET CONDOMINIUM et al., Appellants, and FIESTA MEXICANA, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendants. 2614. 2615. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. December 30, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 17, 2002, insofar as it denied in part and granted in part the motions of the five defendants ultimately found to be liable for summary dismissal of claims and cross claims asserted against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of limiting plaintiffs' entitlement to damages in accordance with the decision herein, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Interlocutory judgment, same court and Justice, entered June 18, 2003, which, inter alia, adopted the jury's apportionment of liability among defendants Manhasset Condominium (5.14%), 108 Owners Corp. (11.5%), 108 Commercial L.L.C. (33.6%), Fiesta Mexicana, Inc. (46.375%), and Viles Contracting Corp. (3.375%), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An eight-alarm fire at 300 West 109th Street in Manhattan caused property damage and displacement of the residents, who were forced to vacate their apartments for approximately three years while the building underwent extensive repair and renovation.

2 A.D.3d 346

This negligence action was brought by the displaced residents against the building owners and managers, the restaurant where the fire started, companies involved in the installation, maintenance and repair of the restaurant's exhaust system, and contractors who had been performing work on the exterior facade and roof of the building. The jury at the bifurcated trial apportioned responsibility among those parties. Four of the five parties adjudged responsible appeal from that apportionment in the interlocutory judgment, and plaintiffs and 10 of the original defendants appeal and cross-appeal from the earlier order to the extent that their motions and cross motions for summary judgment with regard to claims and cross claims were denied. With regard to those defendants not found liable by the jury, their appeals from the earlier order have been rendered...