Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paul Solomons v. Douglas Elliman LLC

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


May 22, 2012

PAUL SOLOMONS,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS ELLIMAN LLC, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 23 MANHATTAN VALLEY NORTH LLC, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Solomons v Douglas Elliman LLC

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 22, 2012

Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered September 23, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action alleging that defendants discriminated against prospective tenants using a Section 8 voucher for the payment of rent, denied plaintiff's motion to compel the discovery of documents relating to piercing the corporate veil between defendants 23 Manhattan Valley North LLC and Baruch Singer, with leave to renew in the event plaintiff obtains a judgment in the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion since there is no basis, at this stage of the proceedings, to seek to pierce the corporate veil. The general statutory exemption from personal responsibility for an organization's debts, obligations and liabilities does not extend to discriminatory acts by a person with an ownership interest in, or the power to make decisions for the organization (see Pepler v Coyne, 33 AD3d 434, 435 [2006]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[5]).

It is noted that contrary to defendants' contention, the subject order is appealable as of right. Plaintiff's motion was made on notice and affected a substantial right of the parties, namely the ability to pursue a theory of the case (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 22, 2012

CLERK

20120522

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.