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
GOOD CAUSE FOR A FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, HOMEOWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CONTROL AND SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK OR DID NOT CREATE OR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
THE CITY’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S SALE OF UNSTAMPED, UNTAXED CIGARETTES (SECOND DEPT).
NAMING THE PRESIDENT OF AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION AS A DEFENDANT PROPERLY JOINED THE ASSOCIATION.
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISCIPLINE AND SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS ARE NOT ARBITRABLE TOPICS, ARBITRATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AFFORDING DISCRETION TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2ND DEPT.
A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEX OFFENDER AND THE VICTIM (HERE DEFENDANT’S YOUNG STEPDAUGHTER) DOES NOT INCREASE THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THEREFORE CANNOT, STANDING ALONE, BE THE BASIS FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT). ​
COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ACCEPT UNAUTHORIZED SURREPLIES (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...