You are here: / / LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS...

LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that liability should not have been found on the part of the corporate principals who committed oppressive acts against the complaining (plaintiff) shareholder:

The Supreme Court also should not have found liability on the part of [the] corporate principals of the corporate defendants, because one of the primary legitimate purposes of incorporating is to limit or eliminate the personal liability of corporate principals … , and the court did not find that they “abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form”… . Qadan v Tehseldar, 2016 NY Slip Op 04036, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CORPORATION LAW (LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER)

You might also like
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
SORA Determination Made at Sentencing (Which Included Incarceration) Invalid
Court’s Explanation of Lien Law Presumption (Where Money Held In Trust by Contractor and Allegedly Misused Can Be Deemed Larceny) Was Determined to Impermissibly Switch the Burden of Proof to the Defendant​
DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records
THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BY AN INSURER SEEKING SUBROGATION FOR A CLAIM ALREADY PAID IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE; THE PAID CLAIM STEMMED FROM THE ACCIDENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ONGOING LITIGATION; THE MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Allegations of Economic Injury Not Sufficient to Establish Standing to Challenge Governmental Action Under State Environmental Quality Review Act
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED A ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC ADRENALECTOMY; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON WHO WAS EXPERIENCED IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, BUT NOT ROBOTIC SURGERY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING; THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC SURGERY WENT TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (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

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE... DOG-BITE COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.