Un Ja Song v Yorkville Towers Assoc. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02473 [216 AD3d 480]

May 9, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

[*1]

Un Ja Song et al., Appellants,

v

Yorkville Towers Associates LLC et al., Respondents.

Un Ja Song and another, appellants pro se.

Mauro Lilling NaParty LLP, Woodbury (Kathryn M. Beer of counsel), for Yorkville Towers Associates LLC and another, respondents.

Kinney Lisovicz Reilly & Wolff P.C., New York (Michael S. Chuven of counsel), for Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2022, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and granted the motion of defendants Yorkville Towers Associates LLC and Ruppert Yorkville Management Co. Inc. (collectively, the Yorkville defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted the Yorkville defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Yorkville defendants submitted an affidavit stating that they neither created nor had notice of a defective hose that leaked in plaintiffs’ apartment, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The court providently denied plaintiffs’ motion to sanction defense counsel. There is no support in the record for plaintiffs’ contention that defendants’ conduct during discovery was undertaken primarily to harass or maliciously injure them (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]) or involved false material statements ( id. para [3]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Kapnick, J.P., Kern, Friedman, Gesmer, Higgitt, JJ..