De-Spec, Inc. v. Sadick
147 A.D.3d 425
N.Y. App. Div.
2017
Check Treatment

De-Spec, Inc., Respondent, v Neil Sadick et al., Appellants.

45 N.Y.S.3d 796

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Joan A. Madden, J.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmation of plaintiff’s attorney, as well as the contract between the parties and related documents were properly submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion, regardless of whether the attorney had first-hand knowledge of the underlying facts (see

;
). Based on the plain language of the contract, plaintiff was only responsible for interior design work, and was not responsible for any work or service provided by any other contractor or subcontractor. Thus, plaintiff was not responsible for the alleged damages defendants incurred based on the improper demolition work performed by a nonparty contractor, hired by defendants to work at the renovation site (see
, lv denied
;
).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.