You are here: / / HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE...
, , ,

HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the purported medical malpractice by a corporation (Meeting House) under a piercing-the-corporate-veil theory:

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” … . “‘[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego'” … . In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, “[g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form, such that one of the corporations is a mere instrumentality, agent and alter ego of the other” … .

… Meeting House failed to adhere to corporate formalities, such as holding board of directors’ meetings. Meeting House was owned and controlled by an employee of the hospital, whose office was in the hospital, pursuant to a contract with the hospital. The hospital had sole discretion over the number of shares and who would be the shareholders. Meeting House was also undercapitalized, since it appears that its assets consisted of a non-interest-bearing loan from the hospital … . Its budget and any amendments thereto had to be approved by the hospital. The common ownership, leadership, and control, and the common location on the grounds of the hospital and in the hospital itself, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the corporate veil should be pierced … . Midson v Meeting House Lane Med. Practice, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 04261, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for what it takes to raise a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced in support of a vicarious liability theory.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL (PARKING LOT RAMP); THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY POLICE OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE EFFECT SHE HAD NO REASON TO FEEL UNSAFE DID NOT CREATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP; THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AT THE HANDS OF THE FATHER OF HER YOUNG CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Serve Superintendent of Schools in Accordance with RPTL Required Dismissal of Property Tax Certiorari Proceeding
THEATER NOT LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT IN PARKING LOT, ASSAULT WAS SUDDEN AND WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HVAC CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT IN NASSAU COUNTY; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR COULD NOT SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND COULD NOT ENFORCE A MECHANIC’S LIEN; THE FACT THAT THE HVAC INSTALLATION WAS DONE BY A LICENSED SUBCONTRACTOR MADE NO DIFFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (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

THE UNINSURED PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING FUTURE... ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED...