Com. Sites Co. v. Prestige Photo Studios, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Com. Sites Co. v. Prestige Photo Studios, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cecere v. Zep Manufacturing Co. (nyappdiv, 2014-04-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cecere v. Zep Manufacturing Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in breach of implied warranty, as the defendants’ submissions established, prima facie, that there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiff (see Arthur Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto Serv., 58 NY2d 993, 995 [1983]; Parker v Raymond Corp., 87 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2011]; Catalano v Heraeus Kulzer, Inc., 305 AD2d 356, 358 [2003]; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., 272 AD2d 360, 361 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cecere v. Zep Manufacturing Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in breach of implied warranty, as the defendants’ submissions established, prima facie, that there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiff (see Arthur Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto Serv., 58 NY2d 993, 995 [1983]; Parker v Raymond Corp., 87 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2011]; Catalano v Heraeus Kulzer, Inc., 305 AD2d 356, 358 [2003]; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., 272 AD2d 360, 361 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mangano v. Town of Babylon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Auth., 246 AD2d 575, 576 [1998]; Valley Cadillac Corp. v Dick, 238 AD2d 894 [1997]), as well as the absence of contractual privity with the plaintiff, an essential element to a claim of implied warranty (see Arthur Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto Serv., 58 NY2d 993, 995 [1983]; Catalano v Heraeus Kulzer, Inc., 305 AD2d 356, 358 [2003]; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., 272 AD2d 360, 361 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mangano v. Town of Babylon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Auth., 246 AD2d 575, 576 [1998]; Valley Cadillac Corp. v Dick, 238 AD2d 894 [1997]), as well as the absence of contractual privity with the plaintiff, an essential element to a claim of implied warranty (see Arthur Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto Serv., 58 NY2d 993, 995 [1983]; Catalano v Heraeus Kulzer, Inc., 305 AD2d 356, 358 [2003]; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., 272 AD2d 360, 361 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. Raymond Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Raymond was also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of implied warranties, since the essential element of contractual privity between the parties was clearly lacking (see Arthur Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto Serv., 58 NY2d 993, 995 [1983]; Catalano v Heraeus Kulzer, Inc., 305 AD2d 356, 358 [2003]; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., 272 AD2d 360, 361 [2000]), and Raymond established, prima facie, that the subject forklift was safe and fit for its intended purposes (see UCC 2-314 [2] [c]; 2-315; Denny v Ford Motor Co., 87 NY2d a…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Amin Realty, LLC v. K & R Construction Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Corp., 256 AD2d 263, 264 [1998]; see also Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., 272 AD2d 360, 361 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Commercial Sites Co.
v.
Prestige Photo Studios, Inc., and Robert Grilli
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 8, 2000.
272 A.D.2d 360
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—In an action, inter alia, to enforce a confession of judgment, the defendants Robert Grilli and Christine Grilli appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered December 29, 1998, as, after an inquest, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $32,122.33.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly pierced the corporate veil and imposed liability on the individual defendants Robert Grilli and Christine Grilli for the unpaid rent and related charges owed to the plaintiff by the corporate defendant Prestige Photo Studios, Inc. (hereinafter Prestige). The plaintiff established at the inquest that its loss was caused by the Grillis’ domination of Prestige (see, Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141). The evidence revealed the absence of formalities such as corporate meetings and records, inadequate capitalization of Prestige, the intermingling of personal and corporate funds, and the use of corporate property for other purposes, including the formation of a second corporation with overlapping ownership, officers, directors, and personnel (see, Anderson St. Realty Corp. v RHMB New Rochelle Leasing Corp., 243 AD2d 595; Simplicity Pattern Co. v Miami Tru-Color Off-Set Serv., 210 AD2d 24; Fern, Inc. v Adjmi, 197 AD2d 444).

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court’s refusal to vacate their default in failing to oppose the motion to strike their answer was a provident exercise of discretion (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Lovisa Constr. Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 148 AD2d 913; Scuba Plus Sky v Partridge Place Corp., 201 AD2d 260). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.