June 1, 2026
London Fischer LLP congratulates Brian A. Kalman and his team on their victory in the case Kuhnreich v. Paragon JV Prop III LLC in a case venued in Supreme Court, New York County. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against a regarding a slip and fall on an asphalt patch. London Fischer LLP established that its client left the area in a safe condition without the existence of a tripping hazard and was not obligated to maintain the area. The trial court held that:
“CAC's motion for summary judgment is granted. "To maintain a negligence cause of action, plaintiff must be able to prove the existence of a duty, breach and proximate cause" (Kenney v City of New York, 30 AD3d 261, 262, 817 N.Y.S.2d 264 [1st Dept 2006] [internal citations omitted]). A contractor who has contracted to render services does not owe a third party, such as plaintiff, a duty of care unless: (1) the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, ‘launches a force or instrument of harm’; (2) the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties, or (3) the contracting party has ‘entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely" (Medinas v MILT Holdings LLC, 131 AD3d 121, 13 N.Y.S.3d 81 [1st Dept 2015] quoting Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140, 773 N.E.2d 485, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120 [2002]). There is no dispute that the latter two [*12] conditions do not apply, and CAC has established that it did not create the alleged hazard at issue here.
Specifically, the testimony of Scully and Panetta, taken together with Fuch's affirmation and the photos referenced therein, establish that the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff's fall developed after CAC's work concluded (see Fernandez v 707, Inc., 85 AD3d 539, 540-41, 926 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1st Dept 2011] [defendant established it did not create misleveled tree well through testimony of its president that when work was completed, approximately one month before the accident, tree well was level with sidewalk and was approved by the property owner's senior project manager]; McDaniel v City of New York, 211 AD3d 535, 536, 181 N.Y.S.3d 42 [1st Dept 2022]). ‘That the asphalt eroded over time is not the exacerbation of a dangerous condition or the launching of a force or instrument of harm” (Baxter v The City of New York, 2009 WL 10671709 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009]).”
To read a copy of the decision click on: Kuhnreich v. Paragon JV Prop III LLC.
