Elenkrieg v. Siebrecht

• Decision Date: 20 May 1924
• Citation: 238 N.Y. 254,144 N.E. 519
• Parties: ELENKRIEG v. SIEBRECHT et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

238 N.Y. 254

144 N.E. 519

ELENKRIEG

v.SIEBRECHT et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 20, 1924.

Action by Eva Elenkrieg against Henry A. Siebrecht, impleaded with the Siebrecht Realty Corporation. From a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department (206 App. Div. 736,200 N. Y. Supp. 307), affirming a judgment entered upon verdict of jury in favor of plaintiff, defendant Siebrecht appeals.

Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Evans & Hunt, of New York City (G. Everett Hunt, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Adolph Bangster and James B. Henney, both of New York City (William A. Hyman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

CRANE, J.

The plaintiff was employed in 1916 as a seamstress in the workshop of a dressmaking establishment on the fourth floor of the premises at No. 425 Fifth avenue, New York City. There were other workshops in this building, employing numerous other working people. About 5:30 o'clock on the 4th day of March, 1916, the plaintiff had occasion to go to the ladies' washroom, which was on the third floor. To descend to this room there was a flight of stairs. Between the third and fourth floors these stairs were in two sections, one-half running in exactly the opposite direction to the other half, and the two halves connected by winders or steps that came to a point on the inner side of the newel post on the left-hand side going down the stairs. The point of these steps connecting the first flight with the second flight tapered down to practically nothing. On the left-hand side going down there was a handrail extending to the newel post, but it did not extend around the newel post, nor was there any possible way of reaching any handrail until the turn had been made. On the right side there was a smooth wall with no handrail. There was no artificial light on the stairway nor at the foot of the stairs, and it was claimed by the plaintiff that the light in the hallway on the fourth floor was insufficient to light up the steps, so that the stairway was dark at the point of the turn. While going down the stairs the plaintiff fell, causing severe injury, for which she has brought this action. It is her claim that her fall was caused by the negligent construction and maintenance of this stairway; that no fault on her part contributed to bring it about.

The main difficulty with the recovery which she has obtained is that she has obtained a judgment against a wrong defendant. She has made Henry A. Siebrecht and the Siebrecht Realty Corporation defendants in the action, alleging in her complaint that the defendants were the owners and lessees of the building in which she was hurt, and that the defendants retained control of the hallways, stairways, and retiring rooms used and intended to be used at the time she was hurt. She also alleges that it was the negligence of these defendants in defectively and improperly constructing and lighting this stairway which caused her injury.

Upon the trial it appeared from plaintiff's proof that Henry A. Siebrecht, as an individual, had constructed the building in question in 1903 on leased property, and had held the leasehold and the building thereon constructed for four or five years, at which time he transferred it to his wife, Mrs. Siebrecht. She advanced to him about $30,000. In 1914 the Siebrecht Realty Corporation was formed, which took over the lease of the property and the building and has owned, controlled, and operated it ever since. The certificate of incorporation shows that the Siebrecht Realty Corporation is a stock corporation, created under the provisions of the Business Corporations Law (Consol. Laws, c. 4) of the state of New York for the purpose of taking, acquiring, holding, and otherwise dealing in and disposing of real estate. The capital stock is $1,000, consisting of 100 shares at a par value of $10 each. The principal office is to be located in the city of New Rochelle, county of Westchester, state of New York. The number of the directors is three, and for the first year they were Henry A. Siebrecht, Emma A. Siebrecht (his wife), and Henry A. Siebrecht, Jr. (his son). The shares of stock were devided as follows: Emma A. Siebrecht, 90 shares; Henry A. Siebrecht, 9 shares; Henry A. Siebrecht, Jr., 1 share.

At the time the plaintiff was injured, in March of 1916, the Siebrecht Realty Corporation held the lease of this building and the premises on which it was constructed. The lease passed by assignment from Mrs. Siebrecht to the Siebrecht Realty Corporation. Birdsall & Co., who looked after the property, were the agents of the Siebrecht Corporation, and paid for the repairs on the building. The corporation reimbursed them. Whatever expenses were incurred were met by the Siebrecht Realty Corporation.

The following questions and answers appeared in Siebrecht's deposition:

‘Q. You were, as an officer of the Siebrecht Realty Corporation, actively interested in the conduct of the business of the Siebrecht Realty Corporation? A. No; not since Birdsall & Co. took charge.

‘Q. Was that in March, 1916? A. Yes.

‘Q. Did you visit the premises? A. Very seldom.

‘Q. Did you visit Birdsall? A. Sometimes I would step in there.

‘Q. They were on the premises; they took charge of the property as your agents-as agents of the Siebrecht Realty Corporation? A. Yes, sir.’

The officers of the corporation were Henry A. Siebrecht, president, Mrs. Siebrecht, vice president, and Mrs. Munroe, a daughter, secretary. The one share had evidently been transferred from the son to the daughter.

Upon the state of the record we have these facts regarding ownership of this property: In 1916, at the time the plaintiff was hurt, the building was on leasehold property. The lease and the property had been transferred to the Siebrecht Realty Corporation, a duly incorporated and organized corporation existing under the laws of the state of New York. This corporation had appointed real estate agents to look after the property. Siebrecht, his wife and daughter owned all the stock of this corporation, and were the officers in charge. The expenses in connection with the maintenance of the building were met and paid for by the corporation.

On the trial it was the claim of the plaintiff that this corporation was a subterfuge; that in reality it did not exist; that Siebrecht was the real owner of the building, and was using the corporation as a shield or cover to the actual ownership. As tending to prove this the plaintiff offered in evidence two letters, one written to the Industrial Code Commission on June 13, 1916, and the other to the Department of Labor on July 21, 1916, in which the writer, H. A. Siebrecht, referred to No. 425 Fifth avenue, the building in question, as ‘my premises.’ He was referring to certain notices received from the Department of Labor requiring certain changes, and he writes:

‘I have received notice from the Department of Labor of several changes to be made in my premises-No. 425 Fifth avenue, N. Y. City, all of which are being complied with and having immediate attention, with the exception of No. 8 and No. 9.

‘Regarding No. 8-if we are obliged to comply with this, it means that we have to go through a tenant's premises, and thereby cut off part of the space he occupies, and we shall be obliged to reduce his rent, or he may cancel his lease, causing us to suffer a great loss. * * *’

In a letter of July 21, 1916, the defendant Siebrecht writes:

‘I want to do all I can and also comply with your orders, but I have suffered such hardship with this building, and all the expenses coming on me all at once, makes it almost unbearable.’

These two letters are informal business communications. Ownership of the property was not in question. The relationship betweenthe writer and the company was not being considered. Merely because Siebrecht referred to the property as his property cannot overcome the undisputed fact of the corporation's existence and ownership. His family owned all the stock of the corporation, and it is a fact that the corporation was a family affair. It is quite natural,...