Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, Inc.

Decision Date23 October 1995
Citation220 A.D.2d 654,632 N.Y.S.2d 658
PartiesHoward ROSENBURG, et al., Appellants, v. ANGIULI BUICK, INC., Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Frank J. Santo, Brooklyn (William R. Santo, of counsel), for appellants.

Chesney, Murphy & Moran, Baldwin (Eugene C. Buccellato, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and MILLER, SANTUCCI and HART, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 7, 1994, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

The plaintiff Howard Rosenburg was injured when he slipped and fell in front of premises located at 201 Bay Street, Staten Island. These premises were owned and operated by the defendant, Angiuli Buick, Inc. For his injuries, Mr. Rosenburg received workers' compensation benefits provided by his employer, Angiuli Dodge, Inc., whose principal place of business was also located at 201 Bay Street. Sam Angiuli was the owner, president, and sole shareholder of the defendant and Angiuli Dodge, Inc.

The plaintiffs commenced this personal injury action against the defendant and the defendant moved for summary judgment alleging that recovery under the Workers' Compensation Law was the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and held that "the mere fact that title to the premises is held in the name of a corporation different from that of the corporate employer should not expose that corporation to suit by the [injured] plaintiff where the owner, president, and sole stock holder of both corporations is the same person". We disagree and now reverse.

The record establishes that the injured plaintiff was employed solely by Angiuli Dodge, Inc., and that the defendant was a separate legal entity from Angiuli Dodge, Inc. Accordingly, the defendant is not shielded from tort liability (see, Casas v. 559 Warren St. Realty Corp., 211 A.D.2d 742, 622 N.Y.S.2d 105; Kaplan v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 201 A.D.2d 461, 607 N.Y.S.2d 425; Bernardo v. Melville Indus. Assocs., 148 A.D.2d 486, 538 N.Y.S.2d 833; Bruno v. Dynamic Enters., 132 A.D.2d 964, 518 N.Y.S.2d 494; but see, Di Rie v. Automotive Realty Corp., 199 A.D.2d 98, 605 N.Y.S.2d 60).

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Salinas v. 64 Jefferson Apartments, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 27, 2019
    ...personal income tax return (see Longshore v. Davis Sys. of Capital Dist. , 304 A.D.2d 964, 759 N.Y.S.2d 204 ; Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick , 220 A.D.2d 654, 632 N.Y.S.2d 658 ). The defendant and Westchester Management are parties to a management agreement which provides that Westchester Manag......
  • Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Associates, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 20, 2010
    ...303 A.D.2d 474, 475, 756 N.Y.S.2d 433; Constantine v. Premier Cab Corp., 295 A.D.2d 303, 304, 743 N.Y.S.2d 516; Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, 220 A.D.2d 654, 655, 632 N.Y.S.2d 658). Here, because the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing either that it and the plaintiff's employer op......
  • Hastings v. Trinity Broadcasting of New York, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 14, 2001
    ...asserting as a defense the plaintiff's recovery of workers' compensation against the parent. See, e.g., Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, Inc., 220 A.D.2d 654, 632 N.Y.S.2d 658 (1995); Boggs v. Blue Diamond Coal Co., 590 F.2d 655, cert. den. 444 U.S. 836, 100 S.Ct. 71, 62 L.Ed.2d 47 (1979); Samar......
  • Saldivar v. Lawrence Dev. Realty, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 15, 2012
    ...concluded that LDR was not the alter ego of JMK, and that JMK and LDR were not alter egos of one another ( see Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, 220 A.D.2d 654, 655, 632 N.Y.S.2d 658;Kaplan v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 201 A.D.2d 461, 461–462, 607 N.Y.S.2d 425;cf. Buckmann v. State of New York, 64 A.D.......
  • 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