You are here: / / DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO...
, ,

DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant Brookstein, the sole shareholder of corporate defendant DKM, was not entitled to summary judgment in the action against him based upon piercing the corporate veil:

“The general rule, of course, 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 concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on owners for the obligations of their corporation … . 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 [the corporation] 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 … .

A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil bears a heavy burden… . “Veil-piercing is a fact-laden claim that is not well suited for summary judgment resolution” … .

Here, Brookstein did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. It is undisputed that Brookstein dissolved DKM without making any reserves for contingent liabilities, despite the existence of a provision in the contract of sale pursuant to which DKM agreed to indemnify [plaintiff] for any breach of warranty for a period of 7½ years after the closing of the sale. This factor was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Brookstein stripped the corporation of assets, leaving DKM without sufficient funds to pay its contractual contingent liabilities … . Town-Line Car Wash, Inc. v Don’s Kleen Mach. Kar Wash, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01443, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Notice of Claim Including Substantive Changes to the Facts and New Theories of Liability Should Not Have Been Allowed—Original Notice of Claim Inadequate
Advertising in New York and an Interactive Website Not Enough to Exercise Long-Arm Jurisdiction
THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THE BUS DRIVER WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Requirements of Certificates of Conformity and Authenticity (Re: the Admissibility of Out-of-State Affidavits) Explained
Newly Discovered Evidence Required Vacation of Murder Conviction
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT SPECULATIVE OR CONCLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANT, IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PROXIMATE CAUSE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF, IN OPPOSITION, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (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

MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN... PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT...