Dempsey v. Intercontinental Hotel Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1987
• Citation: 511 N.Y.S.2d 10,126 A.D.2d 477
• Parties: Doris DEMPSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants, United Technologies Corp., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 10

511 N.Y.S.2d 10

126 A.D.2d 477

Doris DEMPSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants, United Technologies Corp., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Jan. 22, 1987.

C.A. Weinman, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

H.N. Goodman, Brooklyn, for defendants-respondents.

Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and ROSS, ROSENBERGER and ELLERIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on October 9, 1985, granting motion by defendants-respondents Otis Elevator Corporation, Otis Elevator International and United Technologies Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against defendants-respondents by plaintiff and defendants-appellants, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny summary judgment as to United Technologies Corporation and Otis Elevator International, without prejudice to renew after discovery, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This action arises out of injuries sustained by plaintiff on an escalator in the Intercontinental Hotel in Frankfurt, Germany. The escalator was apparently maintained by Flohr Otis, a company incorporated under German law. According to sometimes contradictory information provided by respondents, they claim the following relationships to Flohr Otis: Flohr Otis is wholly owned by Otis Europe SA. A. 73% of Otis Europe SA. A. is owned by either Otis Elevator International or Otis Elevator Corporation, the latter of which is wholly owned by United Technologies Corporation.

Appellant, however, contends Flohr Otis is a division or subsidiary--or both, of each respondent.

Plaintiff, who did not join in this appeal, first sued Intercontinental as the owner of the escalator. Later, she started a second action against United Technologies. She then brought a third suit against United Technologies, Otis Elevator Corp. and Otis International. By order, entered December 28, 1984, Justice Louis Grossman consolidated the three actions. Shortly thereafter, Intercontinental cross-claimed against respondents United Technologies, Otis Elevator and Otis International. Respondents moved for summary judgment against Intercontinental and plaintiff. Justice Martin Evans granted the motion. Intercontinental appeals from that decision.

As a general rule, a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of a subsidiary. Port Chester Electrical Construction Corp. v. Atlas, 40 N.Y.2d 652, 389 N.Y.S.2d 327, 357 N.E.2d 983. However, courts disregard the separate legal identities of the parent and subsidiary corporation if the parent intervenes in the subsidiary's management so thoroughly as to ignore the subsidiary's paraphernalia of incorporation, directors and officers. Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152...