The opinion
Board of Mgrs. of the 432 Park Condominium v 56th
& Park (NY) Owner, LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 31028(U)
March 18, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 155479/2025
Judge: Melissa A. Crane
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1554792025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/25/2026 3:45:47 PM]
INDEX NO. 155479/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. MELISSA A. CRANE PART 60M
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155479/2025
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 432 PARK
CONDOMINIUM, BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 06/30/2025,
RESIDENTIAL SECTION OF THE 432 PARK 06/30/2025,
CONDOMINIUM, 06/30/2025,
MOTION DATE 06/30/2025
Plaintiff,
001 002 003
-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 004
56TH AND PARK (NY) OWNER, LLC,WSP USA
BUILDINGS, INC.,SLCE ARCHITECTS, LLP, MCGRAW
DECISION + ORDER ON
HUDSON CONSTRUCTION CORP., CIM GROUP, LP
MOTION
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 81, 86, 90, 95, 96, 98, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 190, 191, 192, 196, 205,
206
were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,
58, 87, 91, 99, 103, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143,
144, 145, 146, 147, 193, 194, 195, 207, 208
were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 59, 60, 61, 62, 63,
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 88, 92, 97, 100, 104, 148, 149, 150, 151,
152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 200, 201, 202, 203,
204, 209, 210
were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 82, 83, 84, 89, 93,
94, 101, 105, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186,
187, 188, 189, 197, 198, 199, 211, 212
were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL .
With the exception of CIM’s motion to dismiss, these motions to dismiss were largely
decided on the record on January 13, 2026.
155479/2025 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 432 PARK CONDOMINIUM, ET AL vs. 56TH AND Page 1 of 4
PARK (NY) OWNER, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 001 002 003 004
1 of 4
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 155479/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
With respect to motion 4, SLCE Architects, LLP’s motion to dismiss, the court denied
the motion. For the reasons explained on pages 20-22 of the transcript, the court rejected
SCLE’s contention that the complaint had failed to plead fraud with specificity. The court
declined to dismiss on the grounds of statute of limitations for the reasons expressed at pages 32-
33 of the transcript.
For similar reasons, the court denied WSP USA BUILDINGS, INC’s motion to dismiss
(motion 3). At page 41 of the transcript, the court ruled that the statute of limitations did not bar
the action at this point. At pages 43-46 of the transcript, the court ruled that plaintiffs had
properly pled reliance and fraudulent statements. The court also reasoned at pages 46-47 of the
transcript that plaintiffs had properly pled scienter with respect to WSP.
On page 50-52 of the transcript, the court denied that part of all the motions that sought a
stay. In addition, the court rejected Sponsor’s separate arguments regarding the statute of
limitations at page 82 of the transcript, and claim splitting, that the court rejected at page 85 of
the transcript.
The court took CIM’s motion to dismiss on submission and now decides it. The court
rejects plaintiff’s attempt to plead around veil piercing by asserting a cause of action for aiding
and abetting fraud. The court was unable to find any appellate case where aiding and abetting
claims asserted against a separate developer (as opposed to a “sponsor/developer”) proceeded.
Instead, although often dismissed on vastly different facts, cases abound where a developer is
sued on an alter ego theory (see, e.g. Bd. of Managers of Gansevoort Condo. v. 325 W. 13th,
LLC, 121 A.D.3d 554, 555 [1st Dep’t 2014] [“Plaintiff's failure to allege that defendant operated
through the sponsor as an instrument of wrongdoing is fatal to its alter ego claim”]; see also Bd.
of Managers of Mod. 23 Condo. v. 350-52 W. 23, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 433, 434 [1st Dep’t
155479/2025 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 432 PARK CONDOMINIUM, ET AL vs. 56TH AND Page 2 of 4
PARK (NY) OWNER, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 001 002 003 004
2 of 4
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 155479/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
2019][“The facts that the sponsor, Hollander and Marin did not maintain separate office space,
and that they shared telephone numbers, some staff and email do not in itself support a claim for
alter ego liability”]).
Here, the complaint’s allegations sound in control and dominance, not substantial assistance
to an independent entity. For example, plaintiff contends that the Sponsor and CIM (though
control of its employees) -
both
- - disregarded the concerns of the prior architects and fired
consultants and contractors until they found entities who would construct the façade with the
esthetic they wanted. This is not aiding and abetting fraud, it is direct fraud.
Thus, under the facts as pled, CIM did not provide substantial assistance to the Sponsor.
Rather, it IS the Sponsor (allegedly). Accordingly, the court dismisses the cause of action for
aiding and abetting fraud with leave to replead to assert a direct fraud claim against CIM, and to
assert veil piercing allegations within the factual section of an amended complaint. In allowing
plaintiff to replead, the court notes that piercing the corporate veil is not a stand alone cause of
action (see Perez v. Long Island Concrete Inc., 203 A.D.3d 552 [1st Dep’t 2022] [“alter ego
liability is not an independent cause of action”]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED THAT the court denies all motions to dismiss, except for that part of CIM’s
motion to dismiss the aiding and abetting claim against it, without prejudice as described in this
decision; and it is further
ORDERED THAT the parties have 30 days from the efiled date of this decision and
order to answer the complaint; and it is further
155479/2025 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 432 PARK CONDOMINIUM, ET AL vs. 56TH AND Page 3 of 4
PARK (NY) OWNER, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 001 002 003 004
3 of 4
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 155479/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 244 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
ORDERED THAT the parties to this action shall attend a conference on March 20, 2026,
at noon over Microsoft Teams.
202603~D27~7574AF
3/18/2026
DATE MELISSA A. CRANE, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
155479/2025 BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE 432 PARK CONDOMINIUM, ET AL vs. 56TH AND Page 4 of 4
PARK (NY) OWNER, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 001 002 003 004
4 of 4
[* 4]