Bd. of Mngrs, Marke Garden Condo v. 240/242 Franklin Ave. LLC

*1 On December 2, 2002, owner Namik Marke a/k/a Mike Marke (Marke) of Royal Roofing and Construction Inc. (Royal) entered into an agreement with Scarano and Associates Architects (Scarano) for architectural services in the construction of a condominium of two four-family buildings, located at 238A and 240 Franklin Avenue, in Brooklyn (“the premises”). Marke was also the principal and sole owner of 240/242 Franklin Avenue LLC (“240/242″), the sponsor of the condominium, which was an LLC formed solely to develop the condominium and sell the units. Royal was the general*2

contractor for the project.¹ Defendant Scarano submitted a certification of the offering plan in October 2003. Corcoran Group-Brooklyn (“Corcoran”), the designated sales agent, assisted in selling the condominiums to the plaintiffs in 2003-2004.The condominiums were advertised as luxury residences; an eight-unit building with an elevator. The elevator was never installed, and plaintiffs allege this occurred without due notice. Moreover, shortly after taking possession of the premises in 2004, plaintiffs began experiencing leaking, heating and drainage malfunctions among other issues. This lawsuit ensued.Now, defendants Scarano, 240/242 and Marke, and Corcoran make separate motions for summary judgment. The Board of Managers of Marke Gardens Condominium, on its own and on behalf of the individual unit owners (“plaintiffs”) cross-move for the same relief.LawSummary Judgment is a drastic remedy that deprives a litigant of his or her day in court and should, therefore, only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues of material fact. Kolivas v. Kirchoff, 14 A.D.3d 493, 787 N.Y.S.2d 392 (2d Dept. 2005); Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 362 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1974). The proponent of the motion has the initial burden of laying bare its claim demonstrating by admissible evidence that there are no issues of fact for a jury to determine. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 (1986); In re Cassini, 120 A.D.3d 799, 992 N.Y.S.2d 93 (2d Dept. 2014). “If the moving party fails to make such a