Cobblers Lane Hoa v Greenway Dr. Constr. Corp.

[*1] Cobblers Lane Hoa v Greenway Dr. Constr. Corp. 2004 NY Slip Op 50454(U) Decided on May 20, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 20, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:ARONIN, J.P., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
NO. 2003-1367 RI C

COBBLERS LANE HOA, INC., Respondent,

against

GREENWAY DRIVE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Defendant, -and- BLUE STAR LTD., TOM COSTA and CHARLES FARINA, Appellants. GREENWAY DRIVE CONSTRUCTION CORP., BLUE STAR LTD., TOM COSTA and CHARLES FARINA, Third-Party Plaintiffs, SRA CONTRACTING CORP. AND ANDREW GRECO, Third-Party Defendants.

Appeal by defendants Blue Star Ltd., Tom Costa and Charles Farina from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Richmond County (J. McMahon, J.), entered July

31, 2003, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed with $10 costs and motion to [*2]dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against defendants Blue Star Ltd., Tom Costa and Charles Farina granted.

Plaintiff, a condominium homeowner's association, commenced the instant action against Greenway Drive Construction Corp., the sponsor of the condominium, two individuals who were among the sponsor's principals, Tom Costa and Charles Farina, and against Blue Star Ltd. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by a water main which was improperly installed when the condominium development was built. Inasmuch as the "Attorney General has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute sponsors who make false statements in condominium offering plans" (Thompson v Parkchester Apts. Co., 271 AD2d 311 [2000]; see also CPC Intl. v McKesson Corp., 70 NY2d 268 [1987]; Board of Managers of Fairways at N. Hills Condominium v Fairways at N. Hills, 150 AD2d 32 [1989]) and the Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil (see 19 W. 45th St. Realty Co. v Doram Elec. Corp., 233 AD2d 184 [1996]; Mack v City Cadillac-Oldsmobile, Inc., NYLJ, Jan. 6, 2004 [App Term, 2d & 11th
Jud Dists]), the branch of the motion which sought dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Costa and Farina should have been granted.

Furthermore, although the complaint names Blue Star Ltd. as a defendant, the complaint does not set forth a basis for finding it liable to plaintiff. Defendants' motion papers set forth that Blue Star Ltd. had nothing to do with the subject condominium project. Plaintiff's opposing papers made no attempt to remedy this defect in the complaint (see Cron v Hargo Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362 , 366 [1998]). As a result, the branch of the motion which sought dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Blue Star Ltd. should have been granted.
Decision Date: May 20, 2004