VALENTIN v. Park Hill Tenants Corp., et al., Defendants. (2008)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Eddie H. VALENTIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MELCAR GARAGE, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Park Hill Tenants Corp., et al., Defendants.

Decided: March 27, 2008

FRIEDMAN, J.P., GONZALEZ, McGUIRE, MOSKOWITZ, JJ.

Bivona & Cohen, P.C., New York (Kevin J. Donnelly of counsel), for appellant. Grossman & Grossman, P.C., New York (Brett M. Grossman of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 21, 2007, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a parking garage attendant in a parking garage operated by defendant Melcar Garage, Inc. (Melcar), denied Melcar's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Melcar's motion was properly denied for lack of documentation showing, inter alia, exactly who paid plaintiff and supervised his daily activities, and that such person or entity, if not Melcar itself, is Melcar's alter ego (see Hughes v. Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C., 19 A.D.3d 142, 143, 796 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2005] ). In view of the foregoing, we need not reach Melcar's argument that plaintiff's injuries are not “grave” within the meaning of the statute and that any common-law claims against it must therefore be dismissed.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network