Raffa v. Louis A. Stilloe Roofing & Siding Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1992 |
| Parties | James T. RAFFA et al., Respondents, v. LOUIS A. STILLOE ROOFING & SIDING INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Levene, Gouldin & Thompson (David F. McCarthy, of counsel), Binghamton, for appellant.
Ball, McDonough & Johnson (Philip C. Johnson, of counsel), Binghamton, for respondents.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW and MAHONEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.), entered February 14, 1991 in Broome County, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs reside on the top floor of an 11-story multiunit residential cooperative housing building in the City of Binghamton, Broome County. On September 9, 1986 the cooperative corporation contracted with defendant to remove the existing roof on the building and to install a new membrane roof. The work was done in such a manner that substantial amounts of water leaked through the roof and into plaintiffs' apartment on numerous occasions causing extensive property damage. Specifically, on July 2, 1987, a leak occurred prompting plaintiffs to manually move a bed to prevent it from being damaged. As a consequence of the physical effort by plaintiff James T. Raffa, he sustained a left inguinal hernia. Thereafter, plaintiffs commenced this action for personal injury against defendant. Following completion of discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; plaintiffs cross-moved to dismiss the second affirmative defense in which defendant asserted that the causes of action in the complaint did not represent legally cognizable claims. For purposes of the motion, defendant conceded that it was negligent in reconstructing the roof. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiffs' cross motion to strike the second affirmative defense concluding, inter alia, that defendant owed a cognizable duty to plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
Inasmuch as the analysis of whether a cognizable duty exists varies depending upon whether plaintiffs were in privity of contract with defendant or were intended third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving defendant (see, Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v. Y.B.H. Realty Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 220, 557 N.Y.S.2d 286, 556 N.E.2d 1093), plaintiffs' status under the contract must be determined as a threshold issue. In this regard, we reject plaintiffs' argument that their position as shareholders in the cooperative corporation which contracted with defendant renders them, by virtue of the nature of cooperative ownership, the contracting party. The provisions of Cooperative Corporations Law § 47(1) make clear that cooperative shareholders and the cooperative corporation are not one and the same for purposes of contracts entered into by the latter with contractors. Moreover, there is absolutely no indication that there was a principal-agent relationship between the cooperative shareholders and the cooperative corporation regarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palka v. Servicemaster Management Services Corp.
...considerations do not apply in this case and the contractual obligation does not stand alone here (contrast, Raffa v. Stilloe Roofing & Siding, 182 A.D.2d 901, 902, 581 N.Y.S.2d 888). Here, the traditional, complex and particularized analytical path previously described well supports the re......
-
Palka v. Servicemaster Management Services Corp.
...to certain cases where the failure to perform resulted not in property damage but in personal injury (see, Raffa v. Stilloe Roofing & Siding, 182 A.D.2d 901, 902, 581 N.Y.S.2d 888; Bourk v. National Cleaning, supra), including a case almost on all fours with this one which arose out of a de......
-
Lincoln v. Landvest Inc.
...(supra) and Strauss v. Belle Realty Co., 65 N.Y.2d 399, 402-403, 492 N.Y.S.2d 555, 482 N.E.2d 34 (compare, Raffa v. Stilloe Roofing & Siding, 182 A.D.2d 901, 581 N.Y.S.2d 888; Public Adm'r of County of N.Y. v. Fifth Ave. Dev. Corp., 180 A.D.2d 473, 579 N.Y.S.2d 666). For these reasons, and ......
-
Holloway v. Ernst & Young LLP
...upon GMH as a corporate entity, not its individual officers or shareholders. Furthermore, Raffa v. Louis A. Stilloe Roofing & Siding Inc., 182 A.D.2d 901, 902, 581 N.Y.S.2d 888 (3d Dep't 1992) holds that although a person holds shares in a company, it does not entitle that person to benefit......