Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
HOWARD BORRESS ENTERPRISES INC., doing business as Star Electric, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CSJ LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered November 28, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's first and second causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 20, 2006, which directed defendants to maintain $400,000 in a segregated account pending disposition of the instant matter, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
The complaint and the affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss allege that CSJ has no employees, officers or shareholders other than the individual defendants who, at all relevant times, dominated and controlled CSJ and caused it to act solely for their own benefit to the detriment of plaintiff. It is also alleged that the individual defendants made numerous misrepresentations on CSJ's behalf and concealed demolition work being performed on the condominium units it owned at 500 Greenwich Street in order to convert them from commercial to residential space without the permission of the building's board of directors and without the appropriate permits from the City of New York. As a result of the renovation, it is alleged that defendants caused severe damage to plaintiff's units in the building, resulting in significant financial losses. The allegations are sufficient to state causes of action against the individual defendants for negligence and gross negligence (Artech Info. Sys., L.L.C. v. Tee, 280 A.D.2d 117, 721 N.Y.S.2d 321 [2001]; Trans Intl. Corp. v. Clear View Tech., Ltd., 278 A.D.2d 1, 717 N.Y.S.2d 146 [2000] ).
Although the record was less than clear, it was shown at oral argument that counsel for defendants, after negotiating with plaintiff's counsel, reached agreement to place $400,000 in escrow pending disposition of this matter. Since that order was entered with the consent of the parties, defendants are not aggrieved thereby, rendering the order nonappealable.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 27, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)