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
Where a Client’s Claims Against an Attorney Arise from the Attorney’s Providing Legal Services Which Are Related In Part to the Attorney’s Business Enterprise, the “Business Enterprise” Coverage Exclusions In the Legal Malpractice Insurance Policy Are Triggered
“Findings” of Wrong-Doing in Bear Stearns’ Settlement Agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange Did Not Constitute an “Adjudication” of Wrong-Doing Which Would Support the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the “Dishonest Acts Exclusion” in the Professional Liability Insurance Policy—However, the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the Public Policy Precluding Coverage for Intentional Harm to Others Should Not Have Been Dismissed
USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S TWO-YEAR-OLD FIREARM CONVICTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT DEFENDANT “OPENED THE DOOR” WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD NOT QUESTIONED THE PROPRIETY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT OR THE OFFICER’S CONCLUSION THE BULGE IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET WAS A FIREARM; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE TWO-STEP MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE BATSON RECONSTRUCTION HEARING, HELD AFTER THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AN ADEQUATE RECORD FOR APPEAL, WAS ITSELF DEFICIENT, THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT TESTIFY AND THE NOTES OF THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE COURT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Copyright Infringement Action Re Pre-1972 Recordings Not Precluded by “Safe Harbor” Provision of Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Tenant’s Common Law Duty to Keep Sidewalk on the Premises Safe Applies Even Though Another Party Agreed to Maintain the Sidewalk in Its Lease
COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (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...