Torres v Tinton Realty Group LLC

Holding The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant because triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendant acted as the general contractor. However, the court modified the order to grant summary judgment dismissing the property owner’s cross-claims for common-law indemnification and contribution against the defendant.

The court’s words

Supreme established prima facie that a cost sheet it prepared relative to its excavation and superstructure work obligations on the subject construction project represented a contract between it and the property owner, defendant Tinton.

2026 NY Slip Op 06233, at the official text

plaintiff and Tinton raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Supreme was the general contractor by submitting the deposition testimony of Tinton's principal, who testified that Supreme coordinated the trade contractors and hired a site safety contractor.

2026 NY Slip Op 06233, at the official text

Supreme's argument that the parol evidence rule precludes consideration of extrinsic evidence that conflicts with the language as to Supreme's responsibilities in the cost sheet is unavailing.

2026 NY Slip Op 06233, at the official text