You are here: / / Criteria for Holding Parent Company Liable for Torts of Subsidiary
, ,

Criteria for Holding Parent Company Liable for Torts of Subsidiary

In a products liability case, the Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the parent company could be liable for the torts of a subsidiary.  The relevant legal standard was described as follows:

Liability of a parent company for the torts of a subsidiary does not arise from the mere ownership of a controlling shareholder interest. “Rather ‘there must be direct intervention by the parent in the management of the subsidiary to such an extent that the subsidiary’s paraphernalia of incorporation, directors and officers are completely ignored'” … .   The  parent  company  must  “exercise[] complete  dominion  and  control over the subsidiary” ….  Goodspeed, et al, v Hudson Sharp Machine Company, 515490, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

You might also like
Detention by Immigration Officials Did Not Disqualify Claimant from Receiving Workers’ Compensation Benefits
ARTICLE 78 ACTION SEEKING TO PROHIBIT THE TRIAL JUDGE IN A CRIMINAL CASE FROM EXCLUDING TESTIMONY AS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DISMISSED AS INAPPROPRIATE; MATTER CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
NO APPEAL LIES FROM COUNTY COURT’S DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A RESIDENT OF THE HOME WHICH WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICY LANGUAGE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION SHE PRIMARILY RESIDED IN ANOTHER HOME TEN MINUTES AWAY 3RD DEPT.
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER HAD, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDED OVER A DIFFERENT CUSTODY MATTER INVOLVING MOTHER, BUT INVOLVING DIFFERENT CHIDREN AND A DIFFERENT FATHER, DID NOT REQUIRE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFACTION OF THE AFC PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 17 (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT DID NOT TRY TO HIDE THE DOG-WALKING BUSINESS AND WAS ONLY TANGENTIALLY INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION SHE HAD MADE A MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT IN HER CLAIM FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS STEMMING FROM HER FORMER EMPLOYMENT AS A BARTENDER (THIRD DEPT).
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE GRAND JURY ON THE AGENCY DEFENSE IN THIS CRIMINAL SALE OF MARIJUANA CASE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Electricity-Steam Generation Rate Changes Did Not Qualify as a “Rule” Under... Assets Allegedly Wrongly Appropriated by Fiduciary Deemed “Asset-Transfers”...