In an October 3, 2011 decision by Justice Demarest the court granted summary judgment and dismissed from the case a dewatering equipment rental company because it demonstrated that it could not be held liable for the damages which occurred on the construction site. The suit arose from a large construction project which required dewatering (pumping water from the construction site). A neighboring land owner claimed that the dewatering damaged his property because the dewatering cause the ground to shift (or settle). The property owner paid the neighboring landowner his alleged damages and withheld that amount from the payments due the general contractor. The general contractor then brought suit against the various sub-contractors and vendors seeking to recoup those monies.
The dewatering rental equipment company moved to dismiss arguing that it only rented equipment for the project, had no employees physically working at the project and had no control over how the equipment was operated. The company also demonstrated that under its rental contract the subcontractor was required to indemnify the rental company in the event of a lawsuit. The court found that the rental company carried its prima facie burden of proof and the contractor’s attorneys’ affirmation was insufficient to rebut that showing rather the contractor “merely relies solely upon surmise, speculation and conjecture in an effort to create a feigned issue of fact.” The court further found that the contractor did not demonstrate how discovery would have changed this analysis because “mere hope and speculation that additional discovery might uncover evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact is not sufficient to warrant denial of a motion for summary judgment.”
Hudson Meridian Constr. Group, LLC v. Kingdom Assoc., Inc., Sup Ct, Kings County, October 3, 2011, Demarest J, Index No. 16846/09.