From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cabrera v. Liberty Elevator Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 14, 2021
198 A.D.3d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

14368 Index No. 161442/15 Case No. 2021-00126

10-14-2021

Jeaneth CABRERA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. LIBERTY ELEVATOR CO., INC. et al., Defendants, Sterling Investment Partners, Defendant–Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Eileen Budd of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Scott H. Seskin, New York (Scott Seskin of counsel), for respondent.


Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Eileen Budd of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Scott H. Seskin, New York (Scott Seskin of counsel), for respondent.

Gische, J.P., Moulton, Gonza´lez, Kennedy, Scarpulla, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Sterling Investment Partners’ (Sterling's) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Although it was not signed, the transcript of the deposition testimony of one of Sterling's partners was admissible in support of Sterling's motion, because it was submitted by Sterling (see Singh v. New York City Hous. Auth., 177 A.D.3d 475, 475, 112 N.Y.S.3d 63 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Moreover, the transcript was certified by a court reporter, and plaintiff did not challenge its accuracy (see id. ).

The undisputed deposition testimony shows that Sterling was merely a shareholder of Fairway Holdings Group, the parent corporation of Fairway Chelsea (the lessee of the premises at issue), and thus could not be personally liable for any maintenance issues at Fairway Chelsea ( Buller v. Giorno, 28 A.D.3d 258, 259, 813 N.Y.S.2d 394 [1st Dept. 2006] ). Moreover, Cabrera's complaint contained neither general nor specific allegations to support a claim for piercing the corporate veil, i.e., disregard of corporate formalities, ownership overlap, common office space, etc. (see Tap Holdings, LLC v. Orix Fin. Corp., 109 A.D.3d 167, 174, 970 N.Y.S.2d 178 [1st Dept. 2013] ).


Summaries of

Cabrera v. Liberty Elevator Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 14, 2021
198 A.D.3d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Cabrera v. Liberty Elevator Co.

Case Details

Full title:Jeaneth CABRERA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. LIBERTY ELEVATOR CO., INC. et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 14, 2021

Citations

198 A.D.3d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
152 N.Y.S.3d 586