You are here: / / Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution...

Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution Debts Attributed to “New Business”

The Third Department determined the sole officer of a corporation dissolved in 1997 was personally liable for the post-dissolution debts incurred for the purchase of fuel. The court explained the relevant law:

Business Corporation Law § 1005 (a) (1) provides, in relevant part, that, following dissolution, “[t]he corporation shall carry on no business except for the purpose of winding up its affairs.” Winding up, in turn, is defined as “the performance of acts directed toward the liquidation of the corporation, including the collection and sale of corporate assets” (…see Business Corporation Law § 1005 [a] [2]…). Notably, a dissolved corporation is precluded from engaging in new business … and “has no existence, either de jure or de facto, except for a limited de jure existence for the sole purpose of winding up its affairs” … . As a result, “[a] person who purports to act on behalf of a dissolved corporation is personally responsible for the obligations incurred” … . Long Oil Heat, Inc. v Polsinelli, 2015 NY Slip Op 04542, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

You might also like
MANY (BUT NOT ALL) CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT.
NEGLIGENCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS AGAINST THE TOWN BASED UPON A LANDSLIDE WHICH CAUSED FLOODING OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM’S FACIAL SCARS WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY NO DESCRIPTION OF THE SCARS APPEARS IN THE TRIAL RECORD AND NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCARS WAS INTRODUCED; THEREFORE THE SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT ELEMENT OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AND THE ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiffs Demonstrated They Acquired Title to Property with Cabin by Adverse Possession
CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS.
Juror Had Personal/Professional Relationships with Two Prosecution Witnesses—For Cause Challenge Should Have Been Granted
Claim for Psychological Injury Should Have Been Upheld—Retail Employee Was Directed to Submit False Reserve Orders for a Product to Deceive Manufacturer

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Application for Area Variance Properly Denied—Analytical Criteria Des... Cumulative Effect of Several “Suggestive” Factors Rendered the Show-Up...