Stanbury v Czuchuwicz
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 7, 2005
Civil Court, Kings County
Delrita Stanbury, Plaintiff,
against
Nathan Czuchuwicz and 7901 Realty Corp., Defendants.
7389/99
Delores J. Thomas, J.
Defendant Anatol Czuchuwicz s/h/a Nathan Czuchuwicz moves for an order granting him summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint as against him.
Plaintiff commenced this action against defendants Czuchuwicz and 7901 Realty Corp. to recover money damages for injuries she allegedly incurred on September 22, 1995 when she slipped on water while working as a home health aide in apartment 4B located at 7901 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff claims that she slipped as a result of a recurring leak in the ceiling suddenly becoming worse, causing a significant amount of water to come down and flood the kitchen floor.
Defendant Czuchuwicz testified at his examination before trial that he resides at 562 East 7th Street in Brooklyn; that the subject building where the accident occurred is owned by 7901 Realty Corp; that 7901 Realty Corp. is owned by his daughter, Eva Galpern, and her husband, Louis [*2]Galpern; that he has visited the subject building on several occasions; that the subject building is a six-story apartment building; that he does not own any interest in 7901 Realty Corp.; that he believes that his daughter and son-in-law are involved in the everyday management of the building; that he resides at 562 East 7th Street, Brooklyn, New York; that his home address is used as the business address for 7901 Realty Corp.; that he receives correspondence for 7901 Realty Corp. at his home, but he forwards the correspondence, unopened, to his daughter; and that he never receives any telephone calls for 7901 Realty Corp. at home.
Defendant Czuchuwicz claims that since he has no interest in the subject building, he cannot be liable for any accident that occurred there, and that accordingly, this action must be dismissed as against him.
Plaintiff's counsel claims that a title search indicates that the subject building had been last conveyed on February 12, 1988 to 7901 Realty Corp.; that the deed lists the owner as 7901 Realty Corp., c/o Nathan Czuchuwicz, 562 East 7th Street, Brooklyn, New York; that defendant Czuchuwicz indicated at his examination before trial that he did not know whether his daughter and son-in-law were the sole shareholders of 7901 Realty Corp.; that he conceded that his home address is the corporation's business address; that he conceded that he receives corporate correspondence; that this indicates that if anyone wanted to communicate a complaint with respect to the subject building it would be sent to him; that this placed a further responsibility upon him with respect to the management of the subject building and conveyance of information relating to the same; and that under the circumstances, his duties take on those of a managing agent on behalf of the corporation, placing him in a position of receiving and hopefully conveying important information relating to the building for proper action and attention.
In reply, defendant Czuchuwicz submits a copy of his 1996 federal income tax return, which indicates that he does not derive any income from 7901 Realty Corp., and submits 1996 Schedule K-1 forms for Eva and Louis Galpern which indicate that they are each fifty percent owners of 7901 Realty Corp.
Plaintiff claims that the reply should not be accepted by the court since it was served late. The court need not determine whether the reply should be considered since the facts presented therein are not relevant to the issue at hand, to wit, whether defendant Czuchuwicz can be held liable for the alleged accident.
In Felder v. R&K Realty (295 AD2d 560 [2nd Dept 2002]), plaintiff commenced an action for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell from the third floor of a building owned by a nonparty, A.K. Realty Holdings, Inc. ("A.K. Realty"). Plaintiff claimed that while cleaning a window, the window dislodged from the frame causing her to lose her balance and fall. The plaintiff commenced her action against Alfred Cretella and an entity known as R&K Realty, alleging that the building was owned, maintained and managed by both defendants. Approximately four months prior to the occurrence, the building had been transferred from Cretella to A.K. Realty, a corporation wholly owned by Cretella. Cretella moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he was neither the owner nor managing agent of the building. Plaintiff claimed that after the transfer of title, Cretella continued to do everything an owner and/or managing agent would do. Cretella denied that he managed the building either before or after the transfer of title. Supreme Court denied the motion.
In reversing the lower court and granting the motion for summary judgment, the [*3]Appellate Division stated as follows:
"It is settled that a managing agent can be 'subject to
liability for nonfeasance * * * if it were in complete and
exclusive control of the management and operation of
the building.' However, it is also established that '[a]
corporate officer is not held liable for the negligence
of the corporation merely because of his official relation-
ship to it.' Therefore, even assuming the truth of the
plaintiff's allegations that Cretella continued to act as
managing agent after the transfer of ownership to A.K.
Realty, he would have done so only as an officer of that
corporation ..." (at p. 561, citations omitted).
Thus, defendant Czuchuwicz' financial stake in defendant 7901 Realty Corp. has no bearing on his liability. Even if he is a shareholder of defendant 7901 Realty Corp. and derives income from it, said facts would not impose liability on defendant Czuchuwicz. Accordingly, in determining this motion, the court is not considering the reply papers.
Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant Czuchuwicz in this case by claiming that he is a managing agent. The court does not agree with plaintiff, that defendant Czuchuwicz should be considered the managing agent merely because his home address is listed as the corporate address for defendant 7901 Realty Corp., and he received some corporate correspondence. However, even accepting as true for purposes of this motion that defendant Czuchuwicz should be considered the managing agent, there is no basis to impose liability on him.
A managing agent can only be liable for nonfeasance if he is in complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the building. (Hager v. Gilman Management Corp., 4 AD3d 330 [2nd Dept 2004]; Felder v. R&K Realty, supra; Ingordo v. Square Plus Operating Corp., 276 AD2d 528 [2nd Dept 2000]; Inoannidou v. Kingswood Mgt. Corp., 203 AD2d 248 [2nd Dept 1994]).
In Hagen v Gilman Management Corp., supra, defendant managed the building where the accident occurred pursuant to a written contract with the owner. The court held that the defendant could only be held liable if the management contract constituted "a comprehensive and exclusive set of obligations which the parties could have reasonably expected to displace the owner's duty to maintain the premises safely" (at p. 331). The court found that the evidence presented by defendant showed that the owner reserved to itself a significant amount of control over maintenance, and thus, defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
Defendant Czuchuwicz testified at his examination before trial that his daughter and son-in-law are responsible for the daily management of the building. In fact, from the examination before trial it is clear that defendant Czuchuwicz has nothing to do with the maintenance of the building. Plaintiff fails to present any evidence that defendant Czuchuwicz was in complete and exclusive control of the management of the building, and it cannot be said that he displaced the owner's duty to maintain the premises. Plaintiff's claim that defendant Czuchuwicz presumably received complaints about the building which he had a duty to convey to the appropriate person does not support a finding that he was in complete and exclusive control of the management of the [*4]building. Since defendant Czuchuwicz was not in complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the building, he cannot be held liable for nonfeasance, even if he is considered the managing agent for the subject building.
Accordingly, defendant Czuchuwicz' motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed as against him.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated:Brooklyn, New York
October 7, 2005
DELORES J. THOMAS
Judge Civil Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
