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.
Harriet Tubman Gardens Apartment Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. H.T. Development Corporation, et al., Defendants, Bluestone Organization, Defendant–Respondent–Appellant.
Index No. 652532/14 Case No.2019–5937 Bluestone Organization, Inc, Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. N. Wexler, P.E., Inc., et al., Third–Party Defendants–Respondents, Job Opportunities For Women, Inc., et al., Third–Party–Defendants.
Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York (Michael J. White of counsel), for Bluestone Organization, Inc., respondent-appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered July 8, 2019, which insofar as appealed from, granted defendant Bluestone Organization's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.
Issues of fact exist as to whether defendant Bluestone Organization may be held liable as the alter ego or successor in interest to defendant H.T. Development Corporation (HT Development) (see generally Tap Holdings, LLC v Orix Fin. Corp., 109 AD3d 167, 174 [1st Dept 2013]; Fitzgerald v. Fahnestock & Co., 286 A.D.2d 573, 574 [1st Dept 2001] ). There is evidence that HT Development was a special purpose vehicle created to manage the subject building development, that Bluestone and HT Development were owned and run by many of the same people and used the same physical address, that HT Development was dissolved in 2005, and that persons identifying themselves as employees of Bluestone took over its remediation duties after the dissolution. There is also evidence, in the form of Bluestone's own allegations in its third-party complaint, that remediation contractors were contractually required to indemnify and procure insurance on its behalf. Although Bluestone submitted evidence that it has no employees or property, that it is separate and distinct from HT Development, that it was not a party to any of the relevant contracts, and that the persons plaintiff dealt with may have casually referred to themselves as employees of Bluestone but were at all times employed by nonparty Banta Homes Corp., this evidence is not conclusive and presents questions of fact and credibility that cannot be resolved at this stage.
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.
Docket No: 1328 9
Decided: March 09, 2021
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)