You are here: / / PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION...

PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of contract causes of action founded in part on piercing the corporate veil was properly denied:

[Plaintiff] alleged that [defendant] Diaz Rivera, exercised “complete dominion and control” and “complete business discretion” over “all aspects of [the corporation’s] management and operations,” and that [the corporation] and Diaz Rivera failed “to follow normal and customary corporate procedures with regard to [the corporation],” in that [the corporation] “fail[ed] to hold required meetings for [the corporation’s] partners, [and] fail[ed] to prepare and keep corporate records.” Finally, [defendant] alleged that Diaz Rivera, with an improper motive, commingled his funds with [corporation] funds, resulting in inadequate capitalization. …

We find that the allegations of an absence of corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, and the commingling of corporate and personal funds, as well as the allegations that Diaz Rivera directed [the corporation] to take various actions that harmed [defendant], including failing to transfer property rights, siphoning resort revenues, and incurring unnecessary taxes, are sufficient to withstand this pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, based on alter ego liability, as against Diaz Rivera. Cargill Soluciones Empresariales, S.A. de C.V., SOFOM, ENR v Desarrolladora Farallon S. de R.L. de C.V.,2017 NY Slip Op 00069, 1st Dept 1-5-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL  (PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/ALTER EGO (CORPORATION LAW, (PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

You might also like
THE MAJORITY, LAYING OUT ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS IN GREAT DETAIL, AFFIRMED FAMILY COURT’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY RULING ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY IGNORED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH CONFLICTED WITH AND CONTRADICTIED ITS RULINGS, LAYING OUT THAT EVIDENCE IN GREAT DETAIL; ESSENTIALLY THE DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY DEMONSTRATES MOTHER DID NOT MEET HER BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE RELOCATION WAS IN THE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” (FIRST DEPT).
Defendant’s Unsigned Deposition Transcript Admissible In Support of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Okay to Submit Deposition Excerpts As Long As They Are Not Misleading
Supreme Court Used the Wrong Standards When It Denied Petitioner’s Request for Documents Relating to Complaints Alleging the Improper Use of School Property by an Employee of the Department of Education (the Employee Gave a Speech on School Property Which May Have Violated the Chancellor’s Regulations re: the Use of School Property for Political Purposes)—Correct Analytical Criteria Explained and Applied
THE MOTION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG CRITERIA WHEN RULING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; ASSESSING DEFENDANT’S CHANCES AT TRIAL IS NOT THE PROPER ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).
THE INDICTMENT DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OF THE STATUTE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING, A JURISIDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH WAS NOT CURED BY AN AMENDMENT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL DOWN A PERMANENT CONCRETE STAIRWAY DID NOT REMOVE THE INCIDENT FROM THE REACH OF LABOR LAW 240(1); PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE DESIGN) ACTION AROSE FROM THE ROLLOVER OF A VEHICLE MADE BY DEFENDANT FORD; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND PRONE TO ROLLOVERS WAS CONCLUSORY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING UP AN EARTHEN RAMP WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY AN EXCAVATOR AND ROLLED DOWN THE RAMP; THERE WAS NO “SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL” SUCH THAT LABOR LAW 24O (1) WOULD APPLY (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

HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE...