Oleh v. Anlovi Corp.

Citation965 N.Y.S.2d 407,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03279,106 A.D.3d 445
PartiesFranklin OLEH, Sr., etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. ANLOVI CORPORATION, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Decision Date07 May 2013
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills (Milan Dey–Chao and Jeffrey M. Steinitz of counsel), for appellants.

Elliot H. Fuld, Bronx, for respondents.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about June 1, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs' cross motion to amend the complaint to add as a defendant the Estate of Anthony Viaer as sole shareholder of Anlovi Corporation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Franklin Oleh, Sr.'s two infant sons allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of a dangerous condition in the apartment where they lived, in a building then owned by defendant Anlovi Corporation. In 2009, plaintiffs commenced this action against Anlovi, and obtained a default judgment against it. After this action was commenced, Anlovi's sole shareholder,Anthony Viaer, authorized the sale of the building, which was Anlovi's only asset. Viaer died shortly thereafter, and it is undisputed that Viaer's estate now controls proceeds of that sale. Subsequently, Anlovi's insurer disclaimed coverage on the ground that Anlovi failed to provide timely notice of plaintiffs' claim.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs' cross motion to add the estate as a defendant, since the proposed amendment is not palpably improper or clearly lacking merit (CPLR 3025[b] ). The estate is a necessary party to this action because it controls the proceeds of the sale. Further, if the estate is not a party, plaintiffs cannot be accorded “complete relief” (CPLR 1001[a] ), because the sale of Anlovi's assets has rendered it insolvent ( see Ed Moore Adv. Agency v. Shapiro, 124 A.D.2d 696, 696–697, 508 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2d Dept. 1986] ). The estate's rights to Anlovi's assets may also “be inequitably affected by” plaintiffs' default judgment against Anlovi ( Genger v. Genger, 87 A.D.3d 871, 874, 929 N.Y.S.2d 232 [1st Dept. 2011]; see Swezey v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 87 A.D.3d 119, 128–130, 926 N.Y.S.2d 415 [1st Dept. 2011], affd.19 N.Y.3d 543, 950 N.Y.S.2d 293, 973 N.E.2d 703 [2012] ).

We have considered defendants'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Peranzo v. WFP Tower D Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 16 Julio 2019
    ...LLP, 161 A.D.3d 647, 648 (1st Dep't 2018); Farpoint Cos., LLC v. Vella, 134 A.D.3d 645, 645 (1st Dep't 2015); Oleh v. Anlovi Corp., 106 A.D.3d 445, 445 (1st Dep't 2013). See Kellogg v. All Sts. Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 146 A.D.3d 615, 617 (1st Dep't 2017); Stewart Tenants Corp. v. Square ......
  • Chin v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 7 Mayo 2013
    ...proffered therefor by defendant were merely a pretext for discrimination. As to plaintiff's hostile work environment claim, the alleged [106 A.D.3d 445]conduct and remarks plaintiff point to were not “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment” under the Ne......
  • Peranzo v. WFP Tower D Co., Index No. 154704/2016
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 19 Octubre 2018
    ...LLP, 161 A.D.3d 647, 648 (1st Dep't 2018); Farpoint Cos., LLC v. Vella, 134 A.D.3d 645, 645 (1st Dep't 2015); Oleh v. Anlovi Corp., 106 A.D.3d 445, 445 (1st Dep't 2013), the court denies his motion for that relief. This decision constitutes the court's order.DATED: October 19, 2018 /s/_____......
  • Brown v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 12 Enero 2023
    ...support a claim for hostile work environment under the NYCHRL and the recently amended NYSHRL. See Executive Law § 296 (1) (h); Chin, 106 A.D.3d at 445. To the extent that defendants contend that none of the alleged conduct amounts to anything beyond petty slights and trivial inconveniences......
  • 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