Opinion
13289 Index No. 652532/14 Case No. 2019-5937
03-09-2021
Law Office of Michael E. Hatchett, New York (Michael E. Hatchett of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York (Michael J. White of counsel), for Bluestone Organization, Inc., respondent-appellant.
Law Office of Michael E. Hatchett, New York (Michael E. Hatchett of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York (Michael J. White of counsel), for Bluestone Organization, Inc., respondent-appellant.
Gische, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered July 8, 2019, which insofar as appealed from, granted defendant Bluestone Organization's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.
Issues of fact exist as to whether defendant Bluestone Organization may be held liable as the alter ego or successor in interest to defendant H.T. Development Corporation (HT Development) (see generally Tap Holdings, LLC v. Orix Fin. Corp., 109 A.D.3d 167, 174, 970 N.Y.S.2d 178 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Fitzgerald v. Fahnestock & Co., 286 A.D.2d 573, 574, 730 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 2001] ). There is evidence that HT Development was a special purpose vehicle created to manage the subject building development, that Bluestone and HT Development were owned and run by many of the same people and used the same physical address, that HT Development was dissolved in 2005, and that persons identifying themselves as employees of Bluestone took over its remediation duties after the dissolution. There is also evidence, in the form of Bluestone's own allegations in its third-party complaint, that remediation contractors were contractually required to indemnify and procure insurance on its behalf. Although Bluestone submitted evidence that it has no employees or property, that it is separate and distinct from HT Development, that it was not a party to any of the relevant contracts, and that the persons plaintiff dealt with may have casually referred to themselves as employees of Bluestone but were at all times employed by nonparty Banta Homes Corp., this evidence is not conclusive and presents questions of fact and credibility that cannot be resolved at this stage.