You are here: / / THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND...
,

THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof was not sufficient to support piercing the corporate veil and summary judgment should have been granted on that issue:

“Generally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show 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” … .

“Since, by definition, a corporation acts through its officers and directors, to hold a shareholder/officer … personally liable, a plaintiff must do more than merely allege that the individual engaged in improper acts or acted in ‘bad faith’ while representing the corporation.” … Instead, “[t]he party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that the owners [of the corporation], through their domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against that party such that a court in equity will intervene” … .

Here, … the complaint … does not sufficiently allege injury to plaintiff. …

[Plaintiff]  “failed to produce evidence that the individual defendants took steps to render the corporate defendant insolvent in order to avoid plaintiffs’ claim for damages or otherwise defraud plaintiffs” … . Sutton 58 Assocs. LLC v Pilevsky, 2020 NY Slip Op 08020, First Dept 12-29-20

 

You might also like
ONLY THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT ENUMERATED IN VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (E) IS SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES; OTHER INJURY-CAUSING ACTIONS INVOLVING THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STANDARD (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS THE “SOLE REMEDY” FOR BREACH; HOWEVER NOTHING IN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE WAIVED THE NONBREACHING PARTY’S RIGHT TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PURSUANT TO CPLR 5001(A) (FIRST DEPT).
WILLIAMS, THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SLOWING DOWN FOR A WORK CREW AHEAD; THE WILLIAMS CAR WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A POLICE CAR PURSUING ANOTHER VEHICLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED.
Criteria for Judicial Review of Agency’s Action Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Explained
Elements of Several Computer Crimes Described
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND VACATED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST 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

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN... THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE QUI TAM ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF THE NEW...