3
designed the building and the respective premises negligently and in violation of
applicable building and safety standards, and that their faults also proximately caused the
collapse of the building.
Defendants all move to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a legally
sufficient claim for relief: the City, by motion for summary judgment following limited
discovery pursuant to Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P.; all other defendants, by motion in lieu of
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
1
I hold, as discussed in this opinion,
that the motion of the City should be granted and the complaint against it should be
dismissed; that the motions by the Port Authority and by Citigroup both should be denied
as premature; and that the motion, of some, but not all, the other defendants should be
granted. The proceedings against the defendants who remain should continue.
I.
B
ACKGROUND
A. The Development and Construction of Seven World Trade Center
In 1968, during the planning stage for the development of the World Trade
Center and the twin 107-story towers, the Port Authority approached Con Edison about
constructing a power substation to provide power to the proposed development. Con Ed
agreed, and entered into a lease agreement with the Port Authority for the space below
what would become 7WTC. The lease contemplated that the Port Authority might
authorize the construction of an office tower above the premises housing Con Ed's
substation and, in anticipation of such future construction, provided that the Port
Authority would indemnify Con Ed for damage to its property resulting from the
construction and maintenance of the building.
1
Answers previously filed by various of the defendants were withdrawn in accordance with a stipulation of
June 6, 2005 in Civil Action 04 Civ. 7272.
