You are here: / / QUEENS COUNTY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND IT WAS...
,

QUEENS COUNTY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE NASSAU COUNTY ACTION, A CORPORATION IS NOT THE SAME PARTY AS A PRINCIPAL OF THE CORPORATION WITHOUT A SHOWING THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Queens County action did not involve the same parties as the Nassau County action and therefore should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4). A corporation is not the same party as an individual principal of the corporation and should not be so considered in the absence of a demonstration the corporate veil should be pierced:

” Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same'” … . “[W]hile a complete identity of parties is not a necessity for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(4), there must be a substantial’ identity of parties, which generally is present when at least one plaintiff and one defendant is common in each action'” … .

Here, there is no common plaintiff in the Nassau County action and the instant action. Although Queens NY Realty and the plaintiff share the same owner, who was added as a third-party plaintiff in the Nassau County action, ” [i]ndividual principals of a corporation are legally distinguishable from the corporation itself’ and a court may not find an identity of parties by, in effect, piercing the corporate veil without a request that this be done and, even more importantly, any demonstration by defendant that such a result is warranted'” … . Furthermore, the relief sought by the plaintiff in this action is not substantially the same as the relief sought by Queens NY Realty in the Nassau County action … . Mason ESC, LLC v Michael Anthony Contr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03962, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

You might also like
FLAWED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE NOTARIES, CAN BE CURED BY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE NOTARIES (SECOND DEPT).
ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED.
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PERSONAL-SERVICE-OF-A-CLAIM REQUIREMENT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT FOR ACTIONS SEEKING DAMAGES FOR THE STATE’S APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY; HERE SERVICE BY REGULAR FIRST-CLASS MAIL WAS NOT A JURIDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE DEFENDANT, WHO PLED GUILTY TO BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, ATTEMPTED TO CHALLENGE HIS CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER, PRONOUNCED AT SENTENCING, IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING; THE SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION WAS DEEMED TO BE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE CHALLENGED ON DIRECT APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OWED PLAINITFF A DUTY OF CARE, A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT).
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT).
REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CONVERSION... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE...