Summary
granting defendant's motion to dismiss where "the pleadings and evidence fail to provide any ground to infer a relationship between [alleged successor and predecessor], much less a relationship sufficiently close to serve as a predicate for the imposition of successor liability"
Summary of this case from Andres v. Town of WheatfieldOpinion
December 28, 2000.
Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered April 12, 2000 and July 6, 2000, respectively, which granted ETS, Inc.'s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 and dismissed the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Richard I. Wolff, for plaintiff-appellant.
Maria Cilenti, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe, Buckley, JJ.
Although plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon ETS Inc. by reason of ETS's purported status as successor to the liabilities of defendant Polar Communications Corporation, plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would support its successor liability claim (see, Grant-Howard Assocs. v. Gen. Housewares Corp., 63 N.Y.2d 291, 296; Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co., Inc., 59 N.Y.2d 239, 244-245; Ladenburg Thalmann Co., Inc. v. Tim's Amusements, Inc., 275 A.D.2d 243, 712 N.Y.S.2d 526). Indeed, but for the plainly insufficient circumstance that the three individuals who formed ETS were once employed by Polar, the pleadings and evidence fail to provide any ground to infer a relationship between ETS and Polar, much less a relationship sufficiently close to serve as a predicate for the imposition of successor liability (see, id.).
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.