Potash v. Port Auth., 279 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Potash v. Port Auth., 279 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cosgrove v. North Shore Univ. Hosp.
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2025 · confidence medium
However, generally, courts have recognized that "a parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts or obligations of a subsidiary unless it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over [*4]the subsidiary" ( Mitchell v TAM Equities, Inc., 27 AD3d 703, 708 [2d Dept 2006]; Potash v Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 279 AD2d 562, 562 [2d Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BioPharma Credit PLC v. Biogen Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
"A parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts or obligations of a subsidiary unless it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over the subsidiary." Potash v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey , 719 N.Y.S.2d 290, 291 (2d Dept. 2001); see also Am.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. TAM Equities, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
As to the putative liability of Homebridge’s parent corporation, the defendant TAM Equities, Inc. (hereinafter TAM), “[a] parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts or obligations of a subsidiary unless it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over the subsidiary” (Potash v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 279 AD2d 562, 562 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Merrell-Benco Agency, LLC v. HSBC Bank USA
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Even if we agree that MBIA should be deemed the parent company of Merrell-Benco since it is its sole shareholder, a parent company will generally not be held liable for the obligations of its subsidiary unless “it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over the subsidiary” (Potash v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 279 AD2d 562, 562 [2001]).
discussed Cited "see" Pfohl Brothers Landfill Site Steering Committee v. Allied Waste Sys., Inc. (2×)
W.D.N.Y. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Potash v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 279 A.D.2d 562 , 719 N.Y.S.2d 290, 291 (2001) (granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment which plaintiff failed to oppose with any evidence raising triable issue as to whether parent corporation so dominated subsidiary corporation as to warrant piecing subsidiary’s corporate veil); Katz v. N.Y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andrew Potash
v.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Ogden Allied Aviation Services, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 22, 2001.
279 A.D.2d 562
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Ogden Allied Aviation Services, Inc., appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated December 3, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 8, 2000, which denied its motion for leave to renew and/or reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 8, 2000, as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 8, 2000, as denied that branch of the motion which was for renewal is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated December 3, 1999; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 3, 1999, is reversed, on the law, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appellant based its motion for summary judgment, inter alia, on leases and lease renewals dating back to 1956 which demonstrated that the premises where the plaintiff fell were owned by the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and leased by Ogden New York Services, Inc. (hereinafter Ogden New York), the plaintiff’s employer. Ogden New York was an independent subsidiary of the appellant, Ogden Allied Aviation Services, Inc. (hereinafter Ogden Aviation).

A parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts or obligations of a subsidiary unless it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over the subsidiary (see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152; Garcia v Union Carbide Corp., 176 AD2d 219; Horowitz v Aetna Life Ins., 148 AD2d 584; Alexander & Alexander v Fritzen, 114 AD2d 814, affd 68 NY2d 968). Here, the plaintiff failed to op[*563] pose the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment with any evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Ogden Aviation so dominated the operation of its subsidiary that the corporate veil should be pierced, and Ogden Aviation should be held liable for the negligence of Ogden New York (see, Pebble Cove Homeowners’ Assn. v Fidelity N. Y. FSB, 153 AD2d 843). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.