You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND HOLD A MEMBER OF DEFENDANT LLC PERSONALLY LIABLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LLC MEMBER PERSONALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion for summary judgment in this construction accident case against a member of defendant LLC should not have been granted. The motion papers did not support piercing the corporate veil to reach the LLC member (Albaliya) personally:

As a limited liability company, Nadlan is a separate legal entity from its members (see Limited Liability Company Law § 609). “A member of a limited liability company cannot be held liable for the company’s obligations by virtue of his [or her] status as a member thereof'” … .

“However, a party may seek to hold a member of an LLC individually liable despite this statutory proscription by application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil” … . “Generally, . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . Singh v Nadlan, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03100, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
More than One Possible Cause of Icy Condition Required Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Co-Tenant Acquired Entire Parcel by Adverse Possession
HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (CPLR 213(4)) ESTOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED AND ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Convicted of Violating an Unconstitutional Statute Has Committed No Crime

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHERE THERE IS CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE... A PERSON ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAN REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT...