who dissents in part in a memorandum as follows: While I agree with the majority that the motion court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim against defendant Perkins Eastman Architects, PC. (Perkins), I would find that, because plaintiffs are “essentially seeking enforcement of the bargain,” the action should proceed under a contract theory (Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 552 [1992]), and the cause of action for negligence should be dismissed as duplicative of the cause of action for breach of contract.
This action arises from the construction of a new DNA testing laboratory adjacent to the City’s Bellevue Hospital complex in Manhattan. Plaintiff City contracted with plaintiff Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) to serve as the project manager. DASNY, in turn, contracted with defendant Perkins to serve as the project’s architect.
The contract between DASNY and Perkins required Perkins’s designs to be “sufficiently detailed to ensure . . . installation compatibility” and to conform to applicable laws, codes and industry standards. Perkins was also obligated to investigate the site conditions and to supervise and monitor the work of the subcontractors and subconsultants.
Notably, the contract between DASNY and Perkins provides in pertinent part that “[e]xtra costs to [DASNY] resultant from design errors or omissions shall be recoverable from [Perkins] and/or its Professional Liability Insurance carrier.”
During the foundation work on the project, and as a result of that work, one of the adjacent Bellevue buildings began to settle into the ground. The adjacent sidewalks, roadbeds, sewers, and water systems sustained damage. Plaintiffs assert claims against Perkins for breach of contract and negligence.
*437Both causes of action allege identical wrongdoing and additional expenses to the project based on the alleged failures. The only distinction between the two causes of action is that the cause of action for negligence alleges that Perkins “failed to comply with professional standards of care.”
Of course, DASNY’s allegations of a mere breach of duty of care do not transform its breach of contract claim into a tort claim (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 390 [1987]). Moreover, in disentangling tort and contract claims, courts consider “the nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” (Sommer, 79 NY2d at 552). This Court has described the nature of the harm, particularly whether it is “catastrophic,” as “one of the most significant elements in determining whether the nature of the type of services rendered gives rise to a duty of reasonable care independent of the contract itself” (Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y. v Gwathmey Siegel & Assoc. Architects, 192 AD2d 151, 154 [1st Dept 1993]).
In Trustees of Columbia, we found that the professional defendants could be subject to tort liability because the project was “so affected with the public interest” (id.). We noted that due to failures of the architect, a large chunk of the facade of a building fell into the complex’s courtyard presenting a great danger to an area regularly used by students and pedestrians and requiring emergency safety measures and emergency repairs. We also stated that “[t]he sudden precipitous manner in which the harm in this case occurred adds further support to a finding that a claim lies in tort” (id. at 155).
In contrast to the nature of the harm presented in Trustees of Columbia, no “catastrophic” harm is or could be alleged in this case. The settling of the building took place gradually over a couple of years and never posed a serious threat to the public’s safety. Nor were emergency safety measures or repairs required. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, there is no factual issue whether “Perkins’s failure to comply with the relevant professional standards could result in catastrophic consequences.” The alleged breach of contract by Perkins resulted only in the delay of the project and additional costs expended for repairs to the sidewalks, roadbeds, sewers and water systems as a result of the settling of the foundation of the adjoining building. This damage can hardly be described as “catastrophic.” That the project took place near a hospital does not change these crucial facts. Thus, there are no issues of fact presented whether the project was so affected with the public interest that any alleged failure by Perkins resulted in *438catastrophic consequences (see e.g. Verizon N.Y., Inc. v Optical Communications Group, Inc., 91 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2011]).
The majority’s position is not aided by reference to the dictionary definition of “catastrophe.” While the Oxford Dictionaries’ definition does not preclude non-sudden events within the meaning of “catastrophe,” the majority can point to no cases sustaining a tort claim where the damage did not occur suddenly. Further, while the suddenness of the injury is only one factor in the analysis, the cases sustaining tort claims involve actual, not hypothetical, threats to the public safety, such as the fire in Sommer or the falling chunks of facade in Trustees of Columbia. In this regard, it is notable that Duane Reade v SL Green Operating Partnership, LP (30 AD3d 189 [1st Dept 2006]), upon which the majority relies, sustained the tort claim because of the “abrupt nature of the injury” (id. at 191) and because the landlord’s failure to protect the water supply pipes from freezing temperatures as part of a comprehensive scheme of regulations designed to promote fire safety presented a risk to public safety akin to the failure to maintain fire alarms in Sommer. We do not have such circumstances in this case.
Accordingly, DASNY cannot claim a legal duty on the part of Perkins independent of Perkins’s contractual obligations, and the cause of action for negligence is duplicative and should be dismissed (see Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y. v Caudill Rowlett Scott, 160 AD2d 179 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 706 [1990]).