April 21, 2026

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Suzanne Adams, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2024, which denied the motion of defendant US Weatherseal Windows & Doors Operation Inc. under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action for negligence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, unit owners of a condominium, alleged that Weatherseal negligently designed, manufactured, and installed the windows for the building with the result that the sash does not seal tightly against the frame, and that Weatherseal made multiple visits to the affected units but failed to cure the defect. The alleged negligence in design, installation and faulty repairs of the windows caused persistent water leaks that damaged the drywall and hardwood floors of the affected units.

Weatherseal's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' sole cause of action against it was properly denied. Although a contractual obligation generally does not create liability in favor of a third party, there are three recognized exceptions to this general rule (see Stiver v Good & Fair Carting & Moving, Inc., 9 NY3d 253, 257 [2007]; Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). Here, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to show that, at this pre-discovery stage, an exception applies in that Weatherseal may have "created an unreasonable risk of harm to [others]" or "increased that risk" in its design, installation and repair of the windows (Powell v HIS Contrs., Inc., 75 AD3d 463, 464 [1st Dept 2010]). This exception to the general rule is not limited to personal injury actions and extends to actions involving property damage (see Karydas v Ferrara-Ruurds, 142 AD3d 771, 772 [1st Dept 2016]). Concur—Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Hagler, JJ.