Mercer v. 203 East 72nd Street Corp.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Beck v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2005)
- Bernard-Moses v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Bernard-Moses v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Alexander v. Medalliance Med. Health Servs. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2024)
- Alexander v. Medalliance Med. Health Servs., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2024)
- Turner v. Pride & Servs. El. Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Bartel v. Maersk Line, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Uddin v. A.T.A. Constr. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Higgins v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Montalvo v. Madjek, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Coach, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Coach, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Tricoche v. Warner Amex Satellite Entertainment Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Sew Wai Yong v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Doherty v. County of Albany (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Donovan v. All-Weld Products Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Zehnick v. Meadowbrook II Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Regina v. Broadway-Bronx Motel Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered February 11, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant 27 W. 72 Gourmet, Ltd. (27 West) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the summons and complaint to add a new defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion of 27 West for summary judgment was properly
Plaintiff’s cross motion, which relied on the relation-back doctrine, was properly denied. Plaintiff’s showing that the proposed defendant and a named defendant had common shareholders, officers and a comptroller was insufficient to establish that the two entities were united in interest (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173; Valmon v 4 M & M Corp., 291 AD2d 343, 344, lv denied 98 NY2d 611). Unity of interest will not be found unless there is some relationship between the parties giving rise to the vicarious liability of one for the conduct of the other, which is plainly absent here (id.). We also note that plaintiff was not entitled to rely upon the relation-back doctrine for the additional reason that his failure to name the proposed defendant in the original summons and complaint was not attributable to mistake in identifying the proposed new defendant. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.