Carty v. East 175th Street Housing Development Fund Corp.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Buchwald v. 1307 Porterville Rd., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Fuller v. KFG Land I, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Sorge v. Sharp Mgt. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Sorge v. Sharp Mgt. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Colon v. 251 Lexington I LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Colon v. 251 Lexington I LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Pizarro v. Dennis James Boyle, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- CIAPA, DANIEL J. v. MISSO, OTTO (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Ciapa v. Misso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Ciapa v. Misso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Kittay v. Moskowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kassiano v. Palm Management Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Mendoza v. Velastate Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Mendoza v. Velastate Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Morato-Rodriguez v. Riva Construction Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
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, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered March 12, 2010, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Since plaintiffs employer and defendant functioned as one company, plaintiffs claims against defendant are barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Hernandez v Sanchez, 40 AD3d 446 [2007]; Ramnarine v Memorial Ctr. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, 281 AD2d 218 [2001]; Anduaga v AHRC NYC New Projects, Inc., 57 AD3d 925 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 707 [2009]). The record demonstrates that, while the two entities have separate certificates of incorporation, they share a president and director of finance, financial management, administrative headquarters, an insurance policy, and a common purpose. Moreover, plaintiffs employer is a permanent member of defendant, defendant owns the building in which plaintiff was injured, and has no employees, while plaintiffs employer pays all the building’s operating expenses and has employees to operate the facility.
We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.