Quinones v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 17 April 2013
• Citation: 105 A.D.3d 932,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02558,963 N.Y.S.2d 370
• Parties: Jose J. QUINONES, etc., et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants-appellants, New York City School Construction Authority, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants, et al., defendants; Parsons Brinckerhoff/Ammann and Whitney, etc., et al., third-party defendants-respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

105 A.D.3d 932
963 N.Y.S.2d 370
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02558

Jose J. QUINONES, etc., et al., plaintiffs-respondents,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants-appellants,
New York City School Construction Authority, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants, et al., defendants;
Parsons Brinckerhoff/Ammann and Whitney, etc., et al., third-party defendants-respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

April 17, 2013.

Cornell Grace, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Keith D. Grace and Neil R. Finkston of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

Rubenstein & Rynecki, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Kliopatra Vrontos of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

Zetlin & De Chiara LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lori Samet Schwarz and Christopher Long of counsel), for third-party defendants-respondents.

Cozen O'Connor, New York, N.Y. (Matthew D. Kohel of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

[105 A.D.3d 932]In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants City of New York and the Department of Education of the City of New York appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme

[963 N.Y.S.2d 371]

Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated June 9, 2011, as granted those branches of the motion of the third-party defendants which were for summary judgment dismissing their cross claims against them, and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On September 13, 2006, the plaintiff's decedent, age 17, was electrocuted as he attempted to exit a schoolyard where he was trespassing after hours. The accident occurred when he came in contact with an improperly grounded exterior light fixture. The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the Department of Education of the City of New York (hereinafter the DOE) and the City of New York (hereinafter together the City defendants) as owners and operators of the property, the New York City School Construction Authority (hereinafter the SCA), which was responsible for certain renovations, SEN Construction Corp. (hereinafter SEN), which was hired by the SCA to perform those renovations, and SEN's subcontractor, Five Star Electric Corp. (hereinafter Five...