You are here: / / CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS.
, ,

CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS.

The Second Department determined petitioners were properly granted summary judgment piercing the corporate (Diontech) veil to enforce judgments:

Equity will intervene to pierce the corporate veil and permit the imposition of individual liability on owners for the obligations of their corporations in order to avoid fraud or injustice … . A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil which resulted in the injury to that party … . The decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance will depend on the circumstances of the case … .

Here, the petitioners demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on so much of the petition as sought to pierce Diontech’s corporate veil by submitting evidence showing, inter alia, that the appellants dominated Diontech, that Diontech did not adhere to any corporate formalities such as holding regular meetings and maintaining corporate records and minutes, that the appellants used corporate funds for personal purposes, and that the appellants stripped Diontech of assets as they wound down the business, leaving it without sufficient funds to pay its creditors, including the petitioners… . Matter of Agai v Diontech Consulting, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02646, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

CORPORATION LAW (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)/PIERCING CORPORATE VEIL (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)

You might also like
​ THE DISCHARGED LAW FIRM HANDLED THE PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR TWO YEARS; ALTHOUGH THE FIRM DID NOT SUBMIT ANY TIME RECORDS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO AWARD THE DISCHARGED FIRM A PORTION OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE AFTER THE CASE SETTLED (SECOND DEPT).
Police Were Not Justified In Entering the Curtilage of Defendant’s Home (By Climbing a Fence) After Defendant Ignored the Officers’ Command to “Stop”
BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS.
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES ON APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN AN APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, THE COURT EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPEAL; THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS BROUGHT BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED HER CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS AND EXHIBITS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF HE WERE AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (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

PLAINTIFF-CONTRACTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE VALUE OF THE WORK PRECLUDED... DETECTIVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE ROLES...