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
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROCEEDING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ATTEMPTED A LEFT TURN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE POLICE REPORT, PHOTOS AND DASHBOARD VIDEO WERE INADMISSIBLE AND DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS FREE FROM FAULT (SECOND DEPT).
INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE.
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.
THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE BANK’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Re: Whether Dog Had Exhibited Vicious Propensities Prior to Plaintiff’s Injury Precluded Summary Judgment
ON APPEAL, CONVICTIONS FOR “INCLUSORY, CONCURRENT COUNTS” WERE VACATED, AND SEPARATE CONVICTIONS FOR A “CONTINUING OFFENSE” WERE VACATED (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.