You are here: / / Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained/Appellate Review Powers...
,

Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained/Appellate Review Powers Re: a Bench Trial Described

The Second Department determined Supreme Court (in a bench trial) had properly pierced the corporate veil to find the owner personally liable.  The court described the criteria for piercing the corporate veil and noted that, in reviewing a bench trial, the appellate court has the same fact-finding powers as the trial court:

“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” … .

“The general rule . . . is that a corporation exists independently of its owners, who are not personally liable for its obligations, and that individuals may incorporate for the express purpose of limiting their liability” … . The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, allowing the imposition of individual liability on owners for the obligations of their corporation “to prevent fraud or to achieve equity” … . “A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must demonstrate that a court in equity should intervene because the owners of the corporation exercised complete domination over it in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form, thereby perpetrating a wrong that resulted in injury to the plaintiff” … . AZTE Inc v Auto Collection Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00711, 2nd Dept 1–28-15

 

You might also like
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)
Tenancy by the Entirety Extinguished When Both Husband and Wife Convey their Interests to Same Grantee, Who then Conveys His Interest Back to the Husband and Wife
PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE NEW DISCOVERY/DISCLOSURE STATUTES VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO BE HEARD ON THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION ON PARK LAND.
MOTHER’S PETITION ALLEGED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A MODIFICATION-OF-CUSTODY HEARING; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

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

Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Criteria Not Met Here) “General Supervisory Authority” Over Work Not Sufficient to Impose...