Preview:

Radicella v Fawn Ridge Condo II 2010 NY Slip Op 32140(U) August 10, 2010 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 104062/08 Judge: Joseph J. Maltese Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND DCM PART 3 JOSEPHINE RADICELLA,
Plaintiff

Index No.: 104062/08 Motion No.:002, 003

DECISION & ORDER HON. JOSEPH J. MALTESE

against

FAWN RIDGE CONDO II,
Defendant The following items were considered in the review of the following motions: (1) for reargument; and (2) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Papers Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed Notice of Cross-Motion and Affidavits Annexed Answering Affidavits Replying Affidavits Exhibits

Numbered 1 2 3 4 Attached to Papers

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this Motion is as follows:

The plaintiff moves to reargue this court's decision and order dated November 2, 2009 that denied her motion for summary judgment. And upon reargument plaintiff argues that summary judgment should be granted in her favor. The defendant cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and offers opposition to this court allowing reargument of the November 2, 2009 decision and order.

The plaintiff's motion to reargue is granted and upon reargument summary judgment is granted in her favor. The defendant's motion is denied.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff's motion for reargument must fail on its face as it was made more than thirty days after the November 2, 2009 decision and order was served on her with notice of entry. However, this argument must be rejected. Although a movant may not

[* 2]

have technically met the requirements for reargument, the granting of this relief is discretionary with the court in the interest of justice.1 In this case the interests of justice require that this court reevaluate its prior decision and order. As such, reargument is granted.

Facts

The plaintiff is the owner of Unit 115 of Fawn Ridge II Condominium complex, commonly known as 60 Gervil Street, Staten Island, New York, which is a first level home as defined by the offering plan. The plaintiff alleges that the cement slab on which her home is constructed is sinking as a result of the erosion of the soil beneath her property.

According to the plaintiff she noticed that the partition wall between her living room and kitchen had begun to separate from the ceiling. After this discovery on April 3, 2007 the plaintiff contacted the condominium board expressing her concerns. The board responded by directing the plaintiff to hire her own contractor. The plaintiff consulted with her brother, Paul Culetta of Design Plumbing, who corresponded directly with the board. As a result of this intervention the board hired an engineer to evaluate the sinking slab in plaintiff's home.

The board hired Richard Jaszczak, P.E., who opined the following possible causes for the sinking of the slab:

1. An underground stream that is active and moving soil away from the building; 2. Poorly graded back fill that was not properly compacted; 3. Organic material (tree trunks) that were buried with back fill and now are decaying; or 4. Improperly installed grade beam.

1

Ruggiero v. Long Island Railroad, 161 AD2d 622, [2d Dept 1990]. 2

[* 3]

Jaszczak recommended further investigation that included cutting into the sinking slab and digging a test pit to investigate the sub soil.

The board conducted tests on the soil samples that resulted in a negative report for sewage, water and chlorine traces. Subsequently, the board informed the plaintiff that she should seek redress from her personal insurance carrier.

In support of her underlying motion for summary judgment the plaintiff annexed the expert report of Douglas N. Sickles, P.E., NSPE, NABIE, and a senior staff member of Heimer Engineering, P.C. Like Jaszczak, the engineer hired by the board, Sickles found that the underlying soil cannot support the slab under the plaintiff's unit. Additionally, Sickles found that the concrete slab was not reinforced with rebar or steel netting. Furthermore, Sickles discovered that while concrete slabs are typically four inches thick, the concrete slab beneath the plaintiff's unit was increased by adding an additional two inches of concrete on top of the original slab.

Sickles opined that the soil defects may extend beyond the plaintiff's unit to other common areas in the condominium development. Sickles based this opinion on his observation of the severity of cracks in the tennis court surface.

Additionally, the defendant submits the report findings of Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. prepared by Mark A. Rhodes, Project Manager, Lizeth S. Pascua, Senior Consultant, and Joseph P. Buongiorno, P.E. The defendant's expert came to the following three conclusions:

1. The settlement in the interior of the residence was due to consolidation of the underlying soil caused by long term decomposition of organic material in the near surface soils. 2. The upper 1

Download 2010_32140.pdf

New York Law