The opinion
Board of Mgrs. of the 443 Greenwich St.
Condominium v SGN 443 Greenwich St. Owner LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 30950(U)
March 11, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 656934/2021
Judge: Joel M. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6569342021.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/20/2026 3:46:03 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 12:57 PM INDEX NO. 656934/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1344 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH INDEX NO. 656934/2021
STREET CONDOMINIUM,
Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 11/14/2025
-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 024
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC,SGN 443
GREENWICH STREET FEE OWNER LLC,SGN 443 DECISION + ORDER ON
GREENWICH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC,JS MOTION
GREENWICH LLC,NB 443 GREENWICH STREET
LLC,NATHAN BERMAN, JACK BERMAN, MARC L.
FRIED, CETRA/CRI ARCHITECTURE
PLLC,CETRARUDDY ARCHITECTURE D.P.C.,JOHN A.
CETRA, GREENWICH 2D LLC,GREENWICH 4H
LLC,GREENWICH 4E LLC,GREENWICH 2F
LLC,GREENWICH PHD LLC,AVERY TRUST, 443 UNIT
OWNER LLC,443G-3F UNIT OWNER LLC,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC, SGN 443 Third-Party
GREENWICH STREET FEE OWNER LLC, SGN 443 Index No. 595834/2023
GREENWICH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC, JS GREENWICH
LLC, NB 443 GREENWICH STREET LLC, NATHAN BERMAN,
JACK BERMAN, MARC FRIED
Plaintiffs,
-against-
UNIQUE ROOFING OF NEW YORK, INC., HORSEPOWER
ELECTRIC AND MAINTENANCE CORP., PRESERV
BUILDING RESTORATION MANAGEMENT
INCORPORATED, CADCO SALES CORP. D/B/A CHRISTIE
OVERHEAD DOORS, LLC & DIAMOND DOOR, COSENTINI
ASSOCIATES 2 LLC D/B/A TETRA TECH ENGINEERS,
ARCHITECTS & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, P.C., CTS
GROUP ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, P.A., DEMAR
PLUMBING CORP., WATERMARK DESIGNS, LLC, DIRECT
FLOORING, INC., DER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, LLC D/B/A
VIRTUWOOD FLOORING, HERITAGE MECHANICAL
SERVICES, INC., KSW MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., LIF
INDUSTRIES INC. D/B/A LONG ISLAND FIREPROOF DOOR,
INC., FM NY, INC., ROCKAWAY CONTRACTING CORP., SD
STAIRS & RAILING CORP., SPRAY-RITE LLC D/B/A A-RITE
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES LLC, URBAN-SUBURBAN
656934/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs. Page 1 of 7
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC ET AL
Motion No. 024
1 of 7
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 12:57 PM INDEX NO. 656934/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1344 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
RECREATION, INC. D/B/A U.S. RECREATION, INC.
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
PRESERV BUILDING RESTORATION MANAGEMENT Second Third-Party
INCORPORATED Index No. 596006/2023
Plaintiffs,
-against-
EMPIRE RESTORATION GROUP INC.
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROCKAWAY CONTRACTING CORP. Third Third-Party
Index No. 595580/2025
Plaintiff,
-against-
BYRAM ASSOCIATES, INC., JPB FABRICATIONS, INC.
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC, SGN 443 Fourth Third-Party
GREENWICH STREET FEE OWNER LLC, SGN 443 Index No. 595580/2025
GREENWICH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC, JS GREENWICH
LLC, NB 443 GREENWICH STREET LLC, NATHAN BERMAN,
JACK BERMAN, MARC FRIED
Plaintiffs,
-against-
STEVEN DUBNER LANDSCAPING, INC., RG GLASS
CREATIONS, MARVEL CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.,
BARONE STEEL FABRICATORS INC., CZAR INC.
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 024) 1167, 1168, 1169,
1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185,
1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201,
1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217,
1218, 1219, 1220
were read on this motion to DISMISS .
656934/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs. Page 2 of 7
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC ET AL
Motion No. 024
2 of 7
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 12:57 PM INDEX NO. 656934/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1344 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
Third-party defendant, LIF Industries, Inc., d/b/a Long Island Fireproof Door, Inc.
(“LIF”) moves for an Order pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing all cross-claims asserted by
Third-Party Defendants against LIF. No parties have opposed LIF’s motion. For the following
reasons, LIF’s motion is granted.
DISCUSSION
Under CPLR 3212, summary judgment is appropriate when a party establishes with
evidence “that there is no material issue of fact to be tried, and that judgment may be directed as
a matter of law” (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 651 [2004]). “Failure to make such
prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing
papers” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “Once this showing has been
made, however, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to
produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material
issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (id.).
LIF was a subcontractor on the renovation of 443 Greenwich Street, responsible for
furnishing wood and metal doors, door frames, and associated hardware. By Decision and Order
of the Court dated September 4, 2025, LIF was granted summary judgment against the
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs collectively referred to as the Sponsor Defendants, and the
Third-Party Complaint was dismissed with prejudice (NYSCEF 1219). LIF now moves for
dismissal of cross-claims for common-law indemnification, common-law contribution,
contractual indemnification, and breach of contract asserted by Third-Party Defendants against
LIF.
656934/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs. Page 3 of 7
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC ET AL
Motion No. 024
3 of 7
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 12:57 PM INDEX NO. 656934/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1344 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
First, LIF has established that Third-Party Defendants1 are not entitled to common-law
indemnification. “In order to establish a claim for common-law indemnification, a party must
'prove not only that [it was] not negligent, but also that the proposed indemnitor . . . was
responsible for negligence that contributed to the accident or, in the absence of any negligence,
had the authority to direct, supervise, and control the work giving rise to the injury’”
(Shaughnessy v Huntington Hosp. Assn., 147 AD3d994, 999 [2d Dept 2017] [citations omitted]).
Here, this Court has already established that LIF was free from negligence for any of the
alleged conditions in the underlying complaint in this action. In the September 4, 2025 Order
granting LIF summary judgment on the Third-Party Complaint, this Court determined that “LIF
has made a prima facie showing that LIF was not responsible for the work and materials
identified in the underlying complaint, and Sponsor Defendants have not provided evidence to
show a disputed question of fact.” (see NYSCEF 1219 at 8). In reaching that conclusion, this
Court found that there was no evidence that LIF provided any of the glass doors or garage doors
at issue (see id. at 7). Moreover, the Court found that the Subcontract did not specifically state
that LIF was to furnish and install (see id.). Since this Court has previously determined that LIF
was not negligent for the alleged construction defects in the underlying complaint, all cross-
claims asserted against LIF for common-law indemnification must be dismissed.
1
Cross-claims for common-law indemnification were asserted by: Preserv Building Restoration
Management Inc. (“Preserv”); DER Specialty Products, LLC (“DER”); FM NY, Inc. (“FM
NY”); KSW Mechanical Services, Inc. (“KSW”); Direct Flooring, Inc. (“Direct Flooring”);
Rockaway Contracting Corp. (“Rockaway”); Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (“Heritage”);
Cadco Sales Corp. (“Cadco”); Urban-Suburban Recreation (“Urban-Suburban”); Horsepower
Electric and Maintenance Corp. (“Horsepower”); Demar Plumbing Corp. (“Demar”), and SD
Stairs & Railing Corp. (“SD Stairs”).
656934/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs. Page 4 of 7
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC ET AL
Motion No. 024
4 of 7
[* 4]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 12:57 PM INDEX NO. 656934/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1344 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
Second, LIF has established that Third-Party Defendants2 are not entitled to contribution
from LIF. As stated by this Court in its September 5, 2025 Decision and Order, the “basic
requirement” of a claim for contribution is that the culpable parties must be “subject to liability
for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death” and “[p]ure
economic loss from a breach of contract is not a cognizable injury for a common law
contribution claim” (NYSCEF 1219 at 9, quoting Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v
Facilities Dev. Corp., 71 NY2d 599, 602-03 [1988]; Children's Corner Learning Ctr. v A.
Miranda Contr. Corp., 64 AD3d318, 323 [1st Dept 2009]).
Here, the underlying complaint alleges economic damages based on Sponsor Defendants’
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and fraudulent behavior (see NYSCEF 1212).
This would fall under the category of pecuniary loss for which contribution cannot be sought
(see Bd. of Managers of Hudson St. Condominium v 195 Hudson St. Assoc., LLC, 37 AD3d 312
[1st Dept 2007] [finding that a party “may not seek contribution from the [] defendants where the
alleged ‘tort’ is essentially a breach of contract claim”]). Accordingly, all cross-claims against
LIF seeking contribution are dismissed.
Third, LIF has established that the contractual indemnification cross-claims should be
dismissed due to the lack of any contractual relationship between Third-Party Defendants3 and
LIF for any work related to the 443 Greenwich Street Project.
2
The following parties asserted cross-claims for contribution: Preserv, DER, FM NY, KSW,
Direct Flooring, Rockaway, Heritage, Cadco, Urban-Suburban, Horsepower, Demar, and SD
Stairs.
3
The following parties asserted cross-claims for contractual indemnification against LIF:
Preserv, KSW, Direct Flooring, Rockaway, Cadco, Urban-Suburban, and Horsepower.
656934/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs. Page 5 of 7
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC ET AL
Motion No. 024
5 of 7
[* 5]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 12:57 PM INDEX NO. 656934/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1344 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
A claim for contractual indemnification requires contractual privity between the parties.
“In order to recover upon a theory of indemnity, a party must have a contractual relationship
with the entity from which indemnification is sought.” (SSDW Co. v Feldman-Misthopoulos
Assoc., 151 AD2d 293, 295 [1st Dept 1989]). “In the absence of a contractual relationship
(either express or implied) with any of the third-party defendants, the [] claims for
indemnification cannot be sustained” (id.).
As stated in the Affirmation of Mark Farina, LIF did not enter into any contracts with
Preserv, KSW, Direct Flooring, Rockaway, Cadco, Urban-Suburban, or Horsepower related to
the 443 Greenwich Street project (see NYSCEF 1217 at ¶ 5). The only contract LIF entered into
for the work at the project was with 443 Developer LLC (see id. at ¶ 6). Accordingly, given that
there is no opposition to rebut this submission, the cross-claims for contractual indemnification
cannot be sustained against LIF.
For the same reason, the cross-claims for breach of contract for failure to procure
insurance from Third-Party Defendants Preserv, Direct Flooring, Rockaway, and Horsepower are
dismissed. Since LIF has submitted that it did not enter into any contract or agreement with the
aforementioned Third-Party Defendants relating to the 443 Greenwich Street project, and this
evidence is unrebutted, LIF is under no obligation to procure insurance for these Third-Party
Defendants, and the breach of contract cross-claims are dismissed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that LIF’s motion for Summary Judgment dismissing all Cross-Claims
asserted against LIF is GRANTED and all such cross-claims are dismissed with prejudice.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
656934/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs. Page 6 of 7
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC ET AL
Motion No. 024
6 of 7
[* 6]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2026 12:57 PM INDEX NO. 656934/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1344 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2026
3/11/2026
DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
656934/2021 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 443 GREENWICH STREET CONDOMINIUM vs. Page 7 of 7
SGN 443 GREENWICH STREET OWNER LLC ET AL
Motion No. 024
7 of 7
[* 7]