Print By Premier LLC v Emigrant Bancorp, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Print By Premier LLC v Emigrant Bancorp, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 31795(U) July 3, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 110533/11 Judge: Doris Ling-Cohan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. NNED ON 711012012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: DORIS LING-CQHAM 36 PART Justlce -- - Index Number : 110533/2011 PRINT BY PREMIER LLC. INDEX NO. vs. EMIGRANT BANCORP, INC. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. SUMMARY JUDGMENT The following pspsm, numbered I to ,were read on this motion toltor A d # ruq 4 4-/ Notice of MotlonlOrder to Show Cause - Affldavlb - Exhibita Answering Affldavlts - ExhiblG INo(s)- oh& 0 4 &#J4.fia-/ r # &A s Upon the foregolng papers, it is ordered that thle motion lbc v C - I. CHECK ONE: x' I Dated: ...................................................................... S S - Ao fiA ,J.S.C. BORIS LIMG-CGHAN ~ A S DISPOSED E IJ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION ........................... MOTION IS: 0GRANTED 0DENIED GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 0SUBMIT ORDER 0DO NOT POST 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: I [* 2] IN13lCX NO. 11053311 I MO I ION SEQ. NO. 0 ) 11 15 M .II ;liR N I HA N (.XI t i I , I N C:. , FILED In this action bnscd upon allcgcd iinpid bills l:)r printing scrviccs hy plaintill Print I3y I rcmicr I ,I .C ( Print by I)rcmicr or plaintill ), both sidcs niovc Ibr summary judgiiicnt claiining that tlicrc arc no triablc issucs 01 l:uA. l hc issuc prcscntcd by thc within motions is whcthcr dcl cndanl 1hiiyml parly I migrant Savings Bank ( Savings Bank ), a Ncw York corporation, is iiaiiied on thc bills, as to Ihc p a r t y to tlic contract. 11 is not disputed that Savings 13mk is a wholly owncd subsidiary ol dd cndallt I laintil l claims that il pvvidcd printing scrviccs to Savings I3aiili Ihr which i t was ncvcr paid. Ik)r tlic scrviccs. iuitl was ncvcr in privity ol coiitract with plainti 1.1. Ikl cndant bnlslcrs its argiimcnl hy pointing to thc liict h t nonc oi the docunieniary cvidencc proflercd by plaintill names dclcndani I3uiicorp. In [ act, all oL thc bills naiiic Savings 13anlc as thc entity that ol-dcred thc printing scrviccs and [* 3] [* 4] L and qiiotatioiis oiiiittcd); SL C d , r o ,Siniplicify l ultern C o., Inc. IJ MiLrrrzi li.zi-C.. olou. (?[~;,SP/ Scrv., I n c , 2 1 0 A132d 24 ( I st I k p t 1904). Hcrc, therc has bccii no showing, and plaiiitill clocs not dlcgc, l3uiik \Y;H h i t Savings a i1ici.c LdLiiiiiiiy corporation, and that thcrc was incqLiity, liaiid o r iiiall casancc involvcd in the [ransactinns which l1)riii tlic hasis ol tliis lawsi~it. Wliilc Savings Ihnk wid 13ancorp liavc at Icast oiic ol liccr in common, this, withoul iiiorc, is iiisul licicnt to satisly the high standard Ibr piercing tlic corporate vcil, as it docs not show thut Savings I h k w ; an ;iltcr-cgo o f l3ancorp or coiiiplekly dominated by I3ancorp. Scc U/l,Y ~ /li,q/i/(rtid( upi/u/ /I(qm/., l,.P.. 9-3 A113d 480, S cr~iiri/ic.v./,I,( 11, 490 ( 1 Ilcpl 2012)(Iioldiiig allcr cgo tlic ory is supported when dcl cndant Ii mi tcd p;irtiiersIiip and al liI iatc havc common o I liccr & opcratc as a singlc ccoIioiiiic entity). Morcovcr, owncrship ol nll the stock in a subsidiary a ~ i d idciitity of sonic directors, witIioLit coinplctc domination, is not cnough to jiistily picrciiig tlic corpol-atc vcil. Hilly v I on.\olidu/ct./ W ~ : h 1 /bo1I o i p , 5 1 N Y 2 d I 52. 1 63 (1 9x0); SL C crl,so ,Vimplic-i/yI ~ u / t e r n (., o.~ Inc. 11 Miomi I ri/-( olo/~ ()//:,Ye/ , 5 ~ / * \ ~10 AI 32d 24 ( 1 st l h p t 1094). .2 . Aclclitioiially, cvcii il having cotniiiori ol liccrs was indicalivc ol clominntioii. plainti I l has 1101 shown rrny ~ i ) i ~ / e n ~ x > , or cveii allcgcd, thc esislencc ol an incqiiity, lYaiid, o r mal l casancc on the part o I Savings I h n k or 1.3aiicorp. Sheridin fh-oadca.v/in~q (, orp, / n c , 19 A133d at 3;2. Morcovcr, plainti 1 1 hiis no[ asscr[cd any basis wliicli would prcvent it li-om rccovcriiig in an action against Savings J k i i i k , LIK I IY X h a t plainti l l contractcd with. fd. l lainti Il*s apparent authority arguiiicnt is also without merit. Savings 13aiik did not havc appr-ir-cntautliori ty t o bind Uancorpto h i s contract bccause nei tlicl- plainti 1.1; iior B3aric,orp hulicved thai they WCIK dcaling with one another. , ( I d l o c k v SIL~IC, NY2d 224, 23 1 ( 1984) (holding that S w 64 1 c Isscntial ;I lo the crcation ol apparciit authority arc words or cond~ict thc principal, commiinicatccl l o of third party, that givc risc to 1hc appcar;iiicc and bclicl that tlic agcnt ~~osss sscs authority to ciitcr into transaction . . I t Ihe agent cannot by his own acts imbue liitiisc11with apparent authority. ). 1 Icrc. t1iei.c Page 3 01 4 ;I [* 5] 'l'liw:, tlwc is no hasis lo hold 13aucorp liablc b a d on apparcnt authority, ;is a iiiatter 01' law. Since I h c o r p was not I piirty to the within contract and i t cannot bc hclcl liable iindcr tlic Icgal I liirthcr FILED Page 4 01' 4

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.