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
FOR PURPOSES OF THE “RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE,” A DEFENDANT CAN BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE WORK OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IF THE WORK IS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE EXCAVATION WORK WAS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Only (No-Fault) “N-F 5” Form Triggers 30-Day Period to Deny or Pay a Claim
UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE CONDITION OF SIDEWALKS BUT NOT CITY OWNED TREE WELLS, UNLESS THEY AFFIRMATIVELY CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, NEGLIGENTLY REPAIR THE AREA, OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY A SPECIAL USE; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE WELL, NOT THE SIDEWALK, AND NONE OF THE OTHER LIABILITY THEORIES APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
USE OF SIGNERS’ POST OFFICE BOX ADDRESSES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
THE IMPOUNDMENT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, WHICH WAS LEGALLY PARKED AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, WERE ILLEGAL; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY.

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...