Carty v. East 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp..

Decision Date19 April 2011
Citation921 N.Y.S.2d 237,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03111,83 A.D.3d 529
PartiesChesney CARTY, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.EAST 175TH STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, Defendant–Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.Fumuso, Kelly, DeVerna, Snyder, Swart & Farrell, LLP, Hauppauge (Scott G. Christesen of counsel), for respondent.TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, ACOSTA, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti–Hughes, J.), entered March 12, 2010, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff's employer and defendant functioned as one company, plaintiff's claims against defendant are barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 ( see Hernandez v. Sanchez, 40 A.D.3d 446, 836 N.Y.S.2d 577 [2007]; Ramnarine v. Memorial Ctr. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, 281 A.D.2d 218, 722 N.Y.S.2d 493 [2001]; Anduaga v. AHRC NYC New Projects, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 925, 869 N.Y.S.2d 801 [2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 707, 879 N.Y.S.2d 53, 906 N.E.2d 1087 [2009] ). The record demonstrates that, while the two entities have separate certificates of incorporation, they share a president and director of finance, financial management, administrative headquarters, an insurance policy, and a common purpose. Moreover, plaintiff's employer is a permanent member of defendant, defendant owns the building in which plaintiff was injured, and has no employees, while plaintiff's employer pays all the building's operating expenses and has employees to operate the facility.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Fuller v. KFG Land I, LLC, 12350
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 29, 2020
    ...in situations where the plaintiff's employer and the defendant have functioned as one company ( Carty v. East 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 83 A.D.3d 529, 921 N.Y.S.2d 237 [1st Dept. 2011] ). In those circumstances, two or more companies function much as joint venturers ( Carty v. E. 175......
  • Buchwald v. 1307 Porterville Rd., LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 27, 2018
    ...; Amill v. Lawrence Ruben Co., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 458, 459, 954 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Carty v. East 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 83 A.D.3d 529, 529, 921 N.Y.S.2d 237 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Lee v. Arnan Dev. Corp., 77 A.D.3d 1261, 1262–1263, 909 N.Y.S.2d 826 [3d Dept. 2010] ; Samuel v......
  • Kittay v. Moskowitz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 3, 2012
    ...exclusive remedy against HRI is the Workers' Compensation Law ( seeWorkers' Compensation Law § 11; ICarty v. East 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 83 A.D.3d 529, 921 N.Y.S.2d 237 [2011];Morato–Rodriguez v. Riva Const. Group, Inc., 88 A.D.3d 549, 931 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2011];Hernandez v. Sanchez,......
  • Ciapa v. Misso
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 1, 2013
    ...Law § 11 ( see Sulecki v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 454, 454–455, 900 N.Y.S.2d 877;see also Carty v. East 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 83 A.D.3d 529, 529, 921 N.Y.S.2d 237;Diaz, 298 A.D.2d at 548, 749 N.Y.S.2d 46;cf. Palmer v. Dezer Props. II, 270 A.D.2d 207, 207, 706 N.Y.S.2d 31,lv. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT