Colon v. Aldus III Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colon v. Aldus III Associates

296 A.D.2d 362, 745 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7670

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 362 (Colon v. Aldus III Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colon v. Aldus III Associates, 296 A.D.2d 362, 745 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered April 20, 2001, which, in an action arising out of plaintiffs’ decedent’s fall from a scaffold while doing pointing work on a building owned and managed by defendants, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against defendant Triboro Maintenance upon a finding that it was a division of defendant Property Resources Corp. and not a separate entity (see, Levensen v Berkey Professional Processing, 122 AD2d 867); as against defendant Property Resources Corp. upon a finding that it was the decedent’s employer (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, 29 [6]; see, Duche v Star Recycling, 261 AD2d 503); and as against defendant Aldus III Associates, the building’s owner and a limited partnership, and defendant NHP/PRC Management Company LLC, the building’s managing agent and a joint venture, because Property Resources Corp., the decedent’s employer, was a general partner of Aldus and a member of NHP/PRC (see, Rainey v Jefferson Vil. Condo No. 11 Assoc., 203 AD2d 544, lv denied 84 NY2d 804; Rossi v C.C.O. Equip., 200 AD2d 933, lv denied 84 NY2d 802). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ argument, relying on cases involving corporations (e.g., Buchner v Pines Hotel, 87 AD2d 691, affd 58 NY2d 1019), that even though partnerships, unlike corporations, have no existence independent of the persons who create or control them (see, Coplan v Coplan, 268 NY 445, 447), the different names that defendants gave their various associations in order to obtain benefits under article V of the Private Housing Finance Law, and their stringent respect for the separateness of such associations in order to retain those benefits, should preclude them from now claiming that such associations constitute a single integrated enterprise. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered April 20, 2001, which, in an action arising out of plaintiffs’ decedent’s fall from a scaffold while doing pointing work on a building owned and managed by defendants, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against defendant Triboro Maintenance upon a finding that it was a division of defendant Property Resources Corp. and not a separate entity (see, Levensen v Berkey Professional Processing, 122 AD2d 867); as against defendant Property Resources Corp. upon a finding that it was the decedent’s employer (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, 29 [6]; see, Duche v Star Recycling, 261 AD2d 503); and as against defendant Aldus III Associates, the building’s owner and a limited partnership, and defendant NHP/PRC Management Company LLC, the building’s managing agent and a joint venture, because Property Resources Corp., the decedent’s employer, was a general partner of Aldus and a member of NHP/PRC (see, Rainey v Jefferson Vil. Condo No. 11 Assoc., 203 AD2d 544, lv denied 84 NY2d 804; Rossi v C.C.O. Equip., 200 AD2d 933, lv denied 84 NY2d 802). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ argument, relying on cases involving corporations (e.g., Buchner v Pines Hotel, 87 AD2d 691, affd 58 NY2d 1019), that even though partnerships, unlike corporations, have no existence independent of the persons who create or control them (see, Coplan v Coplan, 268 NY 445, 447), the different names that defendants gave their various associations in order to obtain benefits under article V of the Private Housing Finance Law, and their stringent respect for the separateness of such associations in order to retain those benefits, should preclude them from now claiming that such associations constitute a single integrated enterprise. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 362, 745 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colon-v-aldus-iii-associates-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack