Mao v. Krantz & Levinson Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2014 |
| Citation | 117 A.D.3d 944,985 N.Y.S.2d 893,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03681 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | ZHIWEI MAO, et al., respondents, v. KRANTZ & LEVINSON REALTY CORP., appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Jeffrey P. Yong and Thomas Mayo of counsel), for appellant.
Steven Louros, New York, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), entered June 11, 2013, which, in effect, denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was the alter ego of the injured plaintiff's employer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground and that it was the alter ego of the injured plaintiff's employer. The defendant alleged that it was the alter ego of the injured plaintiff's employer, and, thus, that it was entitled to the protections against lawsuits afforded employers by Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6). However, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it was the alter ego of the injured plaintiff's employer. Rather, the defendant merely showed that the two entities are related, which is insufficient, since it did not demonstrate that one of the entities controls the day-to-day operations of the other ( see Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d 594, 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67;Dennihy v. Episcopal Health Servs., 283 A.D.2d 542, 543, 724 N.Y.S.2d 768).
The Supreme Court did not address that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff was its special employee. Thus, that branch of the motion remains pending and undecided ( see Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536, 542, 418 N.Y.S.2d 99).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mauro v. Zorn Realties, Inc.
...operations of the other (see Moses v. B & E Lorge Family Trust, 147 A.D.3d at 1047, 48 N.Y.S.3d 231 ; Zhiwei Mao v. Krantz & Levinson Realty Corp., 117 A.D.3d 944, 945, 985 N.Y.S.2d 893 ). Although the defendant presented evidence that the two entities were related inasmuch as they shared a......
-
Moses v. B&E Lorge Family Trust
...integrated entity, or that either company controlled the day-to-day operations of the other (see Zhiwei Mao v. Krantz & Levinson Realty Corp., 117 A.D.3d 944, 945, 985 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d at 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67 ; Hughes v. Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C......
-
Javid v. Sclafmore Constr.
... ... Herbert Slepoy Corp., 76 A.D.3d 210, 214, 905 N.Y.S.2d 226). Since the plaintiff did not ... ...
-
Sanchez v. 3180 Riverdale Realty, LLC
...operations of the other (see Moses v. B & E Lorge Family Trust, 147 A.D.3d at 1047, 48 N.Y.S.3d 231 ; Zhiwei Mao v. Krantz & Levinson Realty Corp., 117 A.D.3d 944, 945, 985 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d at 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67 ; Degale–Selier v. Preferred Mgmt.......