Kane v SDM Enters. Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Kane v SDM Enters. Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 33832(U) December 4, 2012 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 4054/12 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] • • ' ....... SUPRJll'CS COURT OF THB STATS 0? NEW YORK COUNTY O? KINGS 1 CIVll.. TERM: PART 16'. NANCY KME, Decision and Pl4intiff, o~der Index No. 4054/12 - a.98.inot SDH ENTERPaISBS INC •• SALVATORE mroo:t.IA A.~ :Dl:>M:NIC l!E!."DOI.iJA, Ocfe."1da.nt.$. Do~t' 4. 2012 ------------------------------------------x Defend.ante Salvatoro and Cottl.inic Mendolia move oeek1ng diom.ioaal froni corpor~t ion Moreover, tl'\e caoc on the and che pl•intiff ~11 gro~nds c~.r·.not: they are protected by t he pierce t:he coq:>orotc veil. defcndAnto move to di811Uss the action because cla1tll$ have previoualy l>ec.n litigated. :x>tiO::'lS. b.cld . Papers ~re Th~ th~ plaintiff opposeo the oubaaitted by bot.b p&n:ie• And a.rgumcnte After rcv1ew1r.g tbc a.rsuments of illll portioe, this coun now makes the followlng decision. Plainti ff, Nancy Kone, oigncd a rental lcoeo tor a rent stabil ized apartment located at 293 Grove Street, Ap.;a.rtmcnt 3~ iP &rooklyn, New Yorl< tree dafendant. corporat.ion CDM Rn.te..rprisea to C"OllCencc: July J. 2011. Sdlv~torc Mendolia 13 o.n otticer of SDH Bnt.erprisee. and OolMnic l<e.nck>lia is a C1.0n&ging agent for St?M Enterprises . Dominic Mc.ndoliatZ~~T1 ~agfc on be.half of SJ:io! Bnterprisce. Pla!ntit't claimG, .lt':q~f "~nic- neglected t.O include . .. ·- .. --- [* 2] • • the mandatory rent stabil ized apartment bed bug d iocloovxc form that ce4tific::i 1;.·h\lt the <i()artmcnt is free from bed bugs. Pl a inti tf c loi m.-a there we~ th~ t from the time she moved into the apartment be-d bug and :odent infestations, a.~d that t hose i nfestations were not abated in a timel y fashion . Pl a intiff cctmienced the current la11ro.•euit on Febr uary 1, 2012 fo x- da.ttiage$ ohe cla1ttta to h~ve incurred as a r esul t of these inf estations. Defendants claim that plai ntiff $topped paying r ent &o ot November 2011 . On or about r·ebruary 22, 201 2 oe.fendant SDM Enterprioes commenced an rent. ~ction in Housing Court fo r the un~id A hearing was held on March 7, 201.2 in KoU9ing Cotl'rt reg·o.lrding· <lefendanto' cl ~i ms t or v.npaid rent. The rccoJ:d rcvc~l !J t hat J\Jd9e M ore.on, t he Hov.sin.g court. judge 1nfoXT!'led Mrs . Kano that the purpose of the he a ~ ing was to determine if the case would go to trial or i f it could be eet tlcd . When Judge Morton a eked M-ra. Kane why ehe did not pay t.he rent Mrn . Kane t'e sponded beca~$~ ahe soata1~ed in,jurieo from bed bugs 1n the apattrnent . Mrs. T<ane a l so stated that she had r eta ined a lawyer for her a lready comrc:.eneed action 1n c 1¥i l court for damages. on i.pr11 ~. 2012 a sti pul ati on of settlement was reached in Housi ng Court ,.,hich begin~ with t h e ~t~terr.cnt. t h~t "Ret)pondent con.oente t o t he entry of a final judglnent o f poeaes9i on <:mly.M The p~rt ie~ dispute whether that stipulati on was meant to cover exclusively SOM snte~r ibe~ c l &im.e !or loet rent and Mrs. tcanc• a possession 2 --· [* 3] ._~!IOW MtnO'•• • --··--·-· of tte da~ges ~ pa.rtr:nent. • ..... ... ~ This lawsuit and thcoc ll'IOtion~ First, the individual defendants argue they cannot be oued per sonally aincc they only acced in corpor~tc ... or if it alao included Mre . K.ane•a claims: of f:roM the inle1tation~. followed. ...... "' officcro. Mo~over , all ~heir ~ctcnd3nto copoclty 30 •rvue the l awsuit C11Jet be cilemiseed oin.ce t.be matter Mo alrc.i:tdy beu lit.igat:.ed oind it hol.o al ready been •tipulatcd that no violation regarding bed bc.19& uy be pu.rcn.utd. Conclusions of t.aw Gene rally, ·court• will conoider two f.:a.ctore in determining if t hey should allow a movant to pierce a eorporotion•o corporate v~11. 7he f irs~ i• whethc:~ the corporation ia being ueed to COll"Dit fraud or illegality, ond scCO."ld whet~r one individual or individuals ·have C091Plete do•dnion an<l control over the: co;pa..ny ~. Gypti ll Holding Corp. v. Stpte. 33 AD2d 362, 307 HYS2d 970 (3" Dept . • 1970)), al lege or prove Dof~ndante ~ ith•r of claim th~t ~la i ntiff thoa~ t3cco~o. d1d not Plaintift claim.? that (Jince discovery Mo juot bcgw1 t hey seek oddition•l t.ime to engage in f urther diacovery -.nd determine chen pierce the corpor~t• veil. whc~her chey could Plaintiff c itea to such caoea as lfh • lan v Port Alltbortcy of Ney Xgd!:; ~ Ney ,}f'"n~. 1' A.I>3d 1/.83 , 191 NYS2d 11.3 [2d Dept . , 2005) for t.hc legal pTOnou.nc~t tM.t. dis.'ilis :Jal tn0!.iona mAY be dcnie<:l •t an early otago of the case to 3 -- [* 4] • • ""°''"'' allow the opposing pa..rcy the opportunity for discovery to e·Jbstantiate their clairna. . l a w ia it o~t 'h'hi l e that i a a true statement of the controlling in this case. l n Whelan, {auprg> the oppooir.g party had made probable all egations and n eeded to aubstaoti ate them . In this caae the plaintiff has fa i led to a llege ~ny rc~oon York coorto t ake why the corporate veil should be pierced. pi erci~.g New the COt"Porat e veil verz seriously and wi ll pierce t h e corpora t e veil only wh en n ec essary to prevent f raud or to 0;chi cvc equi ty Ta xa~on Department_ of (1993)) . { ~, Morri e x Ney X~rk ~t;D t·i: a nd finance, 82 N'Y2d 135, 603 NYS2d 807 The p l a i nti ff oeeJcB to p i erce the corpor ate vei l without even allegi ng anything that gives tl\e court reasoo to believe that the corporat i on is acti ng aa the alter cso o f one of its o C era . fic seeking to Therefore , based on the foregoing, t he mot.ion <:ii (Jmi~{I t}'le ¢0mplaint against the t.wo individu"l defendants Salvatore a'tl.d Dominic Mendol ia i s granted. Concerning the remaining dcfend.an~ s. the doctrine of res judicat & preve.ot e tutur e litigation between the oame partiee concc~ing t~e ~o NY2d 3 '~ · ea.me cause or c auses of oction (Hodes v. Axelrod, 520 NY~2d 933 (1 98?)), Reo jvdie ata bars matt.ere actually litigated as wel l a& matt ers which could have been l i t igat.ed ( l .a tbam s·ppirrgwbuah AoaociAtes v . $baker 153 AD2d 788, 545 NYS2d 219 (3'" Dept., 1989) ). 2et .:\t ,~n In~. ---......... .. [* 5] ,...,., • • -·---·- ......... trncn a rele1iee i• UMmbtsuous the intent o! the part i es muot •gTc~~t. {~ ee, be aaeertaincd from the plain language of che Sb)clQ¥Skiy y. Kahn, 273 A.02d 371, 709 NYS2d 208 (2d Dept .• 2000)}. When a rcleQOO appears to ))e pa.~t icular limited to only eloimo. deo'landa or obligations, the instrument will tie operative aa to those mat.ten alone CPrrr-ita."?O v. Town of Hem.irnne.c.k_. 126 Ad.id 623. 511 NYS2d 'O (2d OCpt., 1987)). and cove~se controve~ay rclCAQC ~ae ?odeed. •the 9'eaning of a gcn•ral release r.ecessar!ly depend• ~pon the being oet.tled a.nd upon the purpooe !or which the A given. rolna~e 11!.aY not be ~ead to eovcr matters which the part.ioa did not intend to cover·• <<iAlc y. Citicorp;, 2 78 1'D2d 197, 716 NYS2d 905 (2d oept .• 2000}, u~e. AlAQ, ~cys: r fAnelli, 266 AD2d 361, 698 NYS2d 311 {ld Oept., 1999). Jev i flh MBn,. fo;i;, h;:YI . Cor Agtnq, v. C~~b V. 254 AD2d 455, 679 NYS:2d 31.3 (2d Oc;t • • 1998}). In the case •t atipul~ticn, ~h !ch hL~ plaintiff clearly did not lle4ll tor che deol• wi~h the unpaid rc~t money, to include her damages el•1fl'l8 conc•rn1ng bed bugs. cvrrcnt l awouit fo r datnagea befor e court oc~1on. Aa notod, ~t Plointitt corrmenccd the deten~nt at~rt.~d the hOueing the conference before tr13l for the Mouoing Court matter, Judge Morton seated she vae merely t.ryL.,g co establish tl'--.c iooue•, S.aplying the ~nioo -.re not a;c:tually litigating the case and pl~intiff specified litigate her damage• claill'l::I in civil court . that ehe wanted to W'hctn plaintt!f s --· --· [* 6] • .. • ~ .... oigned the release her belief wao definitely not to include her damageo clb i ms, thua, the release would not cover the damagea clait'aS. Addition.illy, the P13in '"~etrpondcnt langu~ge ot the otipulation o~ye consents to the entry of a final judgment of pooneBei on only•. Accordingly, the motion of the defendant's s eeking diomi$ea l oc the l~weuit b<;a.eed upon res judicata is denied. So or<1ercd . ENTE.~: D.11:reo: CO¢ember 4., 2012 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. t..eoa :R\leheleman JS<:: --

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.