Niagara Vest, Inc. v. Alloy Briquetting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niagara Vest, Inc. v. Alloy Briquetting Corp.

195 A.D.2d 955, 600 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7731

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 955 (Niagara Vest, Inc. v. Alloy Briquetting Corp.) 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

Niagara Vest, Inc. v. Alloy Briquetting Corp., 195 A.D.2d 955, 600 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants Universal Process Equipment Co., Inc., and Johnson Machinery Corp. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against [956]*956them. Defendants presented evidence in admissible form sufficient to prove as a matter of law that defendant Niagara Vest, Inc., had a corporate existence separate from theirs and did not function merely as their alter ego (see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 163; Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v Atlas, 40 NY2d 652, 657; Matter of Gifford, 144 AD2d 742, 744; Ioviero v Ciga Hotels, 101 AD2d 852, 853). Plaintiff failed to submit evidence to create a question of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants Universal Process Equipment Co., Inc., and Johnson Machinery Corp. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against [956]*956them. Defendants presented evidence in admissible form sufficient to prove as a matter of law that defendant Niagara Vest, Inc., had a corporate existence separate from theirs and did not function merely as their alter ego (see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 163; Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v Atlas, 40 NY2d 652, 657; Matter of Gifford, 144 AD2d 742, 744; Ioviero v Ciga Hotels, 101 AD2d 852, 853). Plaintiff failed to submit evidence to create a question of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 955, 600 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niagara-vest-inc-v-alloy-briquetting-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack