Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Jewish Board of Guardians v. Grumman Allied Industries Inc.
Citations: 96 A.D.2d 465; 464 N.Y.S.2d 778; 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18967
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 7, 1983; New York; State Appellate Court
Judgment by the Supreme Court of New York County on April 20, 1982, favored the plaintiff, Jewish Board of Guardians, against defendants Grumman and Biuso, awarding $206,898.47 plus interest and costs, totaling $304,344.66. This judgment was reversed on appeal, with the plaintiff's complaint against both Grumman and Biuso dismissed, and the indemnification claims involving third-party defendant Auriga deemed moot. The case stemmed from the construction of a school building using modular units, with Biuso as the architect, Auriga as the general contractor, and Grumman as the subcontractor responsible for manufacturing and delivering the modules. A severe rainstorm caused water damage to the modules before permanent installation could begin. The jury found Grumman 90% negligent and Biuso 10% negligent, while Auriga was deemed not negligent. The court ruled that Biuso was entitled to indemnification from Auriga, but Auriga could not seek indemnification from Grumman. The court held that neither Grumman nor Biuso was liable for the water damage, citing a clear division of responsibilities. Grumman's obligation was limited to manufacturing and delivering the modules, while Auriga was specifically responsible for providing temporary protection against the weather per the contract specifications. After delivery, Grumman had no further duty to protect the modules, and the instructions it provided were focused solely on installation, not weather protection. The briefs lack clarity on the necessity of special instructions from the manufacturer regarding the protection of modules against the elements. Claims against Grumman for failure to perform were found irrelevant to the damage; specifically, plywood strips could not be installed until the modules were aligned, which had not started. Grumman's roofing felt was not intended as elemental protection, and the issue of roofing plywood not being cut back was mitigated by the general contractor’s use of wooden blocks. Regarding architect Biuso, the contract explicitly states he is not responsible for construction methods or contractor performance, leading to the dismissal of claims against both Grumman and Biuso. Consequently, Biuso's indemnification claim against Auriga and Auriga's related claim against Grumman are also moot. Grumman sought to amend its answers to include a waiver defense based on the Owner's insurance obligations as outlined in the contract, which requires property insurance covering various risks and mutual waivers of claims between the Owner and Contractor. The court denied Grumman's amendment request as untimely, rendering the appeal on this issue moot following the main decision.