Negligence - Maintenance of Premises - Liability of Sidewalk Shed Contractor

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2024, which denied defendant Arsenal Scaffolding, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Arsenal established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it. Plaintiff was neither a party to the subcontract nor an intended beneficiary under the subcontract that obligated Arsenal to install sidewalk sheds at the location where the accident occurred. Therefore, Arsenal established prima facie that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]; Giovacco v Graham, 213 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2023]). Defendant 230 PAS SPE LLC did not raise a triable issue of fact because it did not present any evidence to show that Arsenal could be found liable under any Espinal exception (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140).

Defendants 230 PAS and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. fail to demonstrate that Arsenal's motion is premature (see Severinghaus v TUFCO, Inc., 208 AD3d 1119, 1120 [1st Dept 2022]). Arsenal sufficiently established that it was not responsible for the lighting condition under the scaffolding, and 230 PAS and JPMorgan failed to show anything more than speculation that future discovery could reveal information relating to Arsenal's liability for the allegedly inadequate lighting condition. Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., González, Mendez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.