Lustigman v. 625 Broadway, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lustigman v. 625 Broadway, Inc.

52 A.D.2d 534, 381 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12067

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

DecidedApril 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 534 (Lustigman v. 625 Broadway, Inc.) 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

Lustigman v. 625 Broadway, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 534, 381 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on August 6, 1975, in the Supreme Court, New York County, unanimously modified, on the law, as hereinafter indicated, and as so modified is otherwise affirmed, without costs to either party. There are issues of fact to be resolved at trial as Special Term correctly noted in its order dated July 31, 1975. However, in reviewing the record, we find that the appellant Galewitz acted solely in his capacity as president of the corporation and therefore did not assume any individual liability. Under those circumstances, plaintiff’s suit against Galewitz should have been dismissed. Thus the order entered below should be modified to the extent of dismissing the complaint and severing the action as against Galewitz, and otherwise affirmed. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order entered on August 6, 1975, in the Supreme Court, New York County, unanimously modified, on the law, as hereinafter indicated, and as so modified is otherwise affirmed, without costs to either party. There are issues of fact to be resolved at trial as Special Term correctly noted in its order dated July 31, 1975. However, in reviewing the record, we find that the appellant Galewitz acted solely in his capacity as president of the corporation and therefore did not assume any individual liability. Under those circumstances, plaintiff’s suit against Galewitz should have been dismissed. Thus the order entered below should be modified to the extent of dismissing the complaint and severing the action as against Galewitz, and otherwise affirmed. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 534, 381 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lustigman-v-625-broadway-inc-nyappdiv-1976.