You are here: / / THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION...
, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A BAR OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WERE NOT MET; THE OVER $2,000,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court after a non-jury trial awarding plaintiff over $2,000,000, determined plaintiff was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil to hold defendant Traina, the sole member of defendant limited liability company (LLC), personally liable. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the bar owned and operated by the LLC and was awarded a default judgment:

Generally, a member of a limited liability company cannot personally be held liable for any debts, obligations or liabilities of the limited liability company, “whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise” (Limited Liability Company Law § 609[a]). The concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on members for the obligations of the limited liability company … . ” … [G]enerally . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation [or LLC] in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the [party seeking to pierce the corporate veil] which resulted in [the party’s] injury” … . * * *

… [A]lthough Traina did not observe all corporate formalities, the evidence established that he ran a real business, with employees, customers, and vendors, and the petitioner presented no evidence that the LLC was undercapitalized or that Traina commingled the assets of the LLC with his own or used corporate funds for personal use … . … w[W]ile the petitioner demonstrated that Traina exercised complete domination and control over the LLC, he failed to show that Traina’s actions, including abandoning certain fixtures and equipment to his landlord, were for the purpose of leaving the LLC judgment proof or to perpetrate a wrong against the petitioner … .  … [P]etitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish that there was a basis to pierce the corporate veil … . Matter of DePetris v Traina, 2022 NY Slip Op 07232, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: The criteria for piercing the corporate veil in this personal injury action against a bar owned and operated by a limited liability company were not met. The over $2,000,000 judgment against the sole member was reversed.

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)
Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction (Expungement) Prior to the Expiration of the 10-Year Statutory Period
IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT DAMAGES TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT OFFERED PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGED VEHICLE AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT RECORDS WHICH WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATIONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
IN THIS ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE A MORTGAGE BASED UPON THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK WHICH SERVED THE 2008 COMPLAINT SEEKING FORECLOSURE HAD STANDING AND, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED IN 2008 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS READY WILLING AND ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
A DEFAULT JUDGMENT CANNOT EXCEED IN AMOUNT OR DIFFER IN THE KIND OF RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN... ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS WERE TIME-BARRED, THE RELATED WRONGFUL...