Cerrato v. Dee Corp.
150 A.D.3d 522
N.Y. App. Div.
2017
Check Treatment

JOSE CERRATO et al., Appellants, v DEE CORPORATION et al., Defendants, and SHARON HAKMON et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

December 28, 2015

56 N.Y.S.3d 30

Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Jose Cerrato et al., Appellants, v Dee Corporation et al., Defendants, and Sharon Hakmon et al., Respondents. [56 NYS3d 30]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about December 28, 2015, which granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action alleges negligence in, inter alia, the architectural design and construction of plaintiffs’ new 3-family home. The individual defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting documentary evidence, deposition testimony, and affidavits that demonstrated that they acted in a representative capacity as agents of corporate entities that served legitimate business purposes, and that stated that defendants did not contract with plaintiffs purchasers in their personal capacities (see generally ; ).

The burden shifted to plaintiffs, who did not demonstrate that defendants dominated the corporate entities they represented by, inter alia, ignoring corporate formalities and engaging in self-dealing in order to perpetuate a fraud or wrong against plaintiffs (see ; ). The record lacks evidence to suggest that either individual defendant dominated the corporation he represented, thus undermining plaintiffs request to pierce the corporate veil (see ).

Further, insofar as a contractual relationship between the nonparty architectural corporation and plaintiffs was lacking, we find unavailing plaintiffs’ contention that they submitted facts to raise a triable issue that they had a near privity relationship with the individual defendant architect who allegedly self-certified the construction work to the local building department in order to secure a temporary certificate of occupancy. Plaintiffs did not offer evidence as would raise a triable issue that the architect knew or could have known that plaintiffs were involved with the property and were relying upon his alleged certified statements that pertained to the building construction (see , affd ; ). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.