You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to “pierce the corporate veil” should not have been granted: The allegations in the proposed amended complaint were “conclusory” rather than fact-based:

“‘Broadly speaking, the courts will disregard the corporate form, or, to use accepted terminology, “pierce the corporate veil,” whenever necessary “to prevent fraud or to achieve equity”‘” … . “‘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'” … . The mere contention that a corporation was completely dominated by its owners or conclusory assertions that a corporation acted as the owners’ “alter ego,” without more, will not suffice to support the equitable relief of piercing the corporate veil … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has ‘abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form’ include whether there was a ‘failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use'” … . Moreover, even under the liberal standards of CPLR 3025(b), the proposed amended complaint must still sufficiently allege the material elements of the cause of action asserted … .

Here, the proposed amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations that the Berkovics [the principals of defendant corporation] breached a settlement agreement, thereby acting in bad faith and in furtherance of their own interests, and that the Berkovics exercised complete domination over the defendant in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. The proposed amended complaint fails to assert that the Berkovics acted other than in their alleged capacity as the principals of the defendant or that they failed to respect the separate legal existence of the defendant. Thus, the proposed cause of action seeking to pierce the corporate veil was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit as it was speculative and conclusory … . Anderson v ML Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05931, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight in the the nature of the allegations required to “pierce to corporate” veil. The allegations must be fact-based. Conclusory or speculative allegations will not suffice.

 

, ,

THE SURETY BOND, A CONTRACT, WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND MADE NO MENTION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE ARGUMENT THAT CPLR 5001 MAKES PAYMENT OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MANDATORY WAS REJECTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the terms of the surety bond governed whether the surety was obligated to pay prejudgment interest. Because the bond, a contract, did not mention prejudgment interest, the surety was not obligated to pay it. The argument that CPLR 5001 makes an award of prejudgment interest mandatory, regardless of the language of the surety bond, was rejected:

Here, the contract states that the surety will “pay for labor, materials, and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the [c]onstruction [c]ontract”; importantly to this case, there is no commitment to remit — or even mention of — prejudgment interest. “Surety bonds — like all contracts — are to be construed in accordance with their terms under established rules of contract construction. . . . [A] surety’s obligation upon its undertaking is defined solely by the language of the bond and cannot be extended by the court” … . In the matter before us, the damage claimed by plaintiff is the amount of prejudgment interest it did not receive in the judgment against the surety. However, under the clear and unambiguous terms of the payment bond, the surety had no obligation to remit same. Stone Cast, Inc. v Couch, Dale Marshall P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05860, Third Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: CPLR 5001 does not make payment of prejudgment interest mandatory in breach of contract cases. The language of the surety bond, a contract, controls.​

 

, ,

THE GUARANTY OF RENT DUE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WAS A “GOOD GUY” GUARANTY; THE GUARANTOR’S LIABILITY ENDED WHEN THE TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES, NOT SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE LANDLORD ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined Mr. Lieberman’s guaranty of the rent due under the commercial lease terminated when the tenant vacated the premises, not when the landlord subsequently accepted the surrender of the premises. The opinion turns on interpreting the language of the guaranty and the lease:

In the world of commercial leases, a “good guy” guaranty is a limited guaranty in which the guarantor’s obligation extends only up to the point that the tenant surrenders the premises to the landlord, leaving the tenant solely responsible for rent due from that point forward … . The question in this case is whether the guaranty at issue operates in that manner. The guarantor’s liability ended when the tenant vacated the premises and, under the terms of the guaranty in this agreement, was not conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of that surrender. Accordingly, we reverse. * * *

It would be a simple matter for parties intending to enter into a “good guy” guaranty to say so explicitly, with clear language that does not require courts to resort to rules of construction regarding superfluity or canons that aid in determining the parties’ intent. Here, although the parties could have expressed their intent in a much simpler and clearer way and avoided this litigation entirely, we conclude that the guaranty in this case is limited, confining the guarantor’s liability to damages accruing prior to the date the tenant surrendered possession of the Premises. Under the terms of the guaranty, WSA [the tenant] surrendered possession of the Premises on or about November 30, 2020 when it provided 1995 CAM [the landlord] notice, completely vacated the Premises, and relinquished control of the Premises. 1995 CAM LLC v West Side Advisors, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05782, CtApp 10-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an analysis of a “good guy” guaranty of rent due under a commercial lease.

 

, ,

BASED UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RULED THAT UNCLAIMED SETTLEMENT FUNDS CAN BE REDISTRIBUTED TO THE OTHER CLASS MEMBERS, REJECTING DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT ANY UNCLAIMED FUNDS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THEM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined Supreme Court properly ruled that unclaimed checks payable to class members as part of a class action settlement can be redistributed to the other class members. The ruling was based upon an interpretation of the settlement agreement which did not specifically address the “unclaimed checks” issue. Defendants argued the unclaimed funds should be returned to them. The opinion is too fact-specific and detailed to fairly summarize here. O’Brien v Sagbolt LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05280, Third Dept 10-2-25

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) THE OWNERS OF THE LLC SIGNED A PARAGRAPH AGREEING TO GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF THE RENT; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the lease was entered into by the limited liability company (LLC), the owners of the LLC signed as personal guarantors of the rent payments. Therefore the breach of contract action against the individual owners should not have been dismissed:

“An agent executing a contract on behalf of a disclosed principal ‘is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clearly appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally'” … . “[T]here [must be] clear and explicit evidence of the agent’s intention to substitute or superadd his [or her] personal liability for, or to, that of his [or her] principal” … . “There is great danger in allowing a single sentence in a long contract to bind individually a person who signs only as a corporate officer” … . A personal guaranty of a corporation’s obligation will be enforced against an individual where it “‘constitute[s] a deliberately stated, unambiguous, and separate expression personally obligating'” the individual under the contract … . * * *

Directly above the … signature lines was a paragraph stating that the parties agreed “[t]hat Roman and Solomon Davydov, are the owners of Tavak LLC, and they will act as personal guarantors for the payment of rent and any other[ ] costs, bills and fees and issues arising from the above enumerated items.” …

The clearly worded language of the guaranty clause made reference to Tavak and to each of the individual defendants by name, was contained in a short, two-page rider, and appeared directly above the rider’s signature lines, which the individual defendants signed without listing their corporate titles. 166-20 Union Turnpike, LLC v Tavak, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05054, Second Dept 9-24-25

Practice Point: The owners of a limited liability company which enters a lease can agree to be personally liable for the debts of the LLC by guaranteeing the payment of rent.​

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CERTIFIED PLAINTIFFS AS A CLASS BASED ON THE FIVE MANDATORY FACTORS IN CPLR SECTIONS 901 AND 902; THE CLASS DEFINITION DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN IMPERMISSIBLE “FAIL SAFE” CLASS UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined Supreme Court properly certified plaintiffs as a class in this wage dispute. Plaintiffs, who acted as “flaggers” at defendants’ construction sites, argued they were wrongly classified as “crossing guards” or “traffic control” and paid at a rate lower than the prevailing wage. The opinion rejected the argument that the class definition constituted an impermissible “fail safe” class under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

CPLR 901(a) sets forth five factors required to obtain class certification, which are commonly referred to as, “numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . A class action can be maintained pursuant to CPLR 902 only if the five prerequisite factors stated in CPLR 901(a) are met … . * * *

Defendants assert that the class definition constitutes an impermissible “fail safe” class under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), Rule 23(b). A “fail safe” class exists “when the class itself is defined in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of the defendant is established” … . A “fail safe” class is impermissible because it prevents an adverse judgment being entered against plaintiffs … . Defendants argue that the sole issue in the case is whether or not a particular member was in fact acting as a “flagger” and thus that class membership and liability are inextricably intertwined. …

Supreme Court’s decision amended the definition of the class to avoid an impermissible “fail safe” class under FRCP 23 (b), by excluding reference to “whether public works contracts required the payment of prevailing wages on subject projects” as applying to the ultimate issue of liability. Supreme Court amended the definition of the class to state, “All persons employed by Out-Look Safety LLC at any time since April 16, 2018 through January 28, 2024, who worked as non-union construction flaggers on Restani, Safeway, Triumph, and/or Hawkeye projects requiring the payment of prevailing wages in New York City.” McMillian v Out-Look Safety LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04963, First Dept 9-11-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the proof required to meet the five factors for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902, as well the nature of an impermissible “fail safe” class definition. “A ‘fail safe’ class exists ‘when the class itself is defined in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of the defendant is established’ …”.

 

, ,

A PROPER FOUNDATION WAS NOT LAID FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE WERE NOT MET AND PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the business records relied upon by plaintiff in this breach of contract action were not supported by a sufficient foundation. Therefore, under the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the documents were inadmissible hearsay and could not support plaintiff’s summary judgment motion:

“‘Records made in the regular course of business are hearsay when offered for the truth of their contents'” … . “When a party relies upon the business records exception to the hearsay rule in attempting to establish its prima facie case, ‘[a] proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures'” … .

In support of its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of Denine Chevillot Knowles, its vice president. Though Knowles attested that she had “personal knowledge of the relevant business practices of Plaintiff,” she did not attest that the records submitted in support of the motion were “made in the regular course of business” and were “needed and relied on in the performance of functions of the business,” that it was “the regular course of such business to make the record[s],” or that the records were “made at or about the time of the event being recorded” … . Thus, Knowles failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of any records concerning the defendants’ payment history and default … . Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon in the affidavit were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Vasishta, 2025 NY Slip Op 04885, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Business records are hearsay. To be admissible the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule must be met. Consult this decision for the foundation requirements for the admissibility of business records.​

 

, , ,

HERE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A LOOSE FLOOR TILE IN PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this premises liability slip and fall case, determined (1) the motion court should not have considered an argument first raised in opposition to the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment, and the defendant out-of-possession landlord could not be held liable for a loose floor tile in plaintiff’s apartment. The lease between defendant and plaintiff’s landlord made defendant responsible for maintenance of the public areas of the building and plaintiff’s landlord responsible for maintenance of all other areas:

The plaintiff’s allegation that the loose floor tile was caused by a leaky roof was not pleaded, “and a plaintiff cannot raise a new theory of liability in opposition to a motion for summary judgment” … .

… [An] “… out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, since the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the pleadings do not allege a violation of a statute, the defendant cannot be held liable unless he retained control over the premises and owed a duty assumed by contract or a course of conduct … .

“[C]ontrol refers to the ability of an out-of-possession landlord to remedy dangerous conditions” … . “Reservation of a right of re-entry for inspection and repair in a lease may, under certain circumstances, constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability for injuries caused by an alleged hazard” … . In the absence of a statutory violation, there must be a significant structural or design defect present in order for a right of re-entry to constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability … .

Here, the defendant, who had no key to access the building, never visited the second floor, and did not know there were tenants living on the second floor, established, prima facie, that he did not have an ability to remedy the loose floor tile, which was not a significant structural defect … .  Alexandre v Shih T. Wang, 2025 NY Slip Op 04855, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the liability of an out-of-possession landlord for a non-structural defect inside a tenant’s apartment.

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE “PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL CRITERIA” AND ASSESSED DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PARENT CORPORATION; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court had properly applied the “pierce the corporate veil” criteria to assess damages for breach of contract against the defendant parent company:

“Because a decision to pierce the corporate veil in any given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, there are no definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when this power may be exercised” … . However, under the totality of the circumstances presented here, we conclude that plaintiffs met their heavy burden of showing that “[JAE] exercised complete domination of [J.A. Madison] in respect to the transaction attacked[,] [specifically the Consulting Agreement]” … . Thus, we will address the second prong of the test – namely, whether plaintiffs met their burden to show “that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff[s] which resulted in plaintiff[s’] injury” … . * * *

“Wrongdoing in this context does not necessarily require allegations of actual fraud. While fraud certainly satisfies the wrongdoing requirement, other claims of inequity or malfeasance will also suffice … . Allegations that corporate funds were purposefully diverted to make it judgment proof or that a corporation was dissolved without making appropriate reserves for contingent liabilities are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of wrongdoing which is necessary to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory … .

… The evidence presented at trial showed that JAE used its domination of J.A. Madison to commit a wrong against plaintiffs by stopping payments to plaintiffs under the Consulting Agreement, causing J.A. Madison to become judgment proof, and then by dissolving J.A. Madison after this action had already been commenced, making plaintiffs’ judgment against J.A. Madison nothing more than a pyrrhic victory. The fact that J.A. Madison may have initially been created for a legitimate purpose of operating a store selling Jonathan Adler merchandise and products does not change the analysis. Rich v J.A. Madison, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04818, First Dept 8-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion and the dissent for a comprehensive discussion of the criteria for piercing the corporate veil in the context of a breach of contract.

 

IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hom, in a matter of first impression, determined the “Alcoholic Beverage Control Act § 55-c(4) [hereinafter “the Act”], which prohibits the termination of agreements between brewers and beer wholesalers without good cause and an opportunity to cure, applies to non-written agreements.” Plaintiffs are beer distributors. Plaintiffs’ distribution contracts with defendant beer company (Yuengling) were oral. Defendant purported to terminate plaintiffs’ distribution contracts. In response to plaintiffs’ lawsuit alleging violation of the Act, defendants argued the Act does not apply to oral contracts. The Second Department held that the Act does apply to oral contracts, but determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for breach of the Act

:…[W]e conclude that the amended complaint in this action failed to state a cause of action alleging violations of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 55-c because the plaintiffs failed to plead the essential and material terms of their alleged distribution agreements. Oak Beverages, Inc. v D.G. Yuengling & Son, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04730, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a statutory-interpretation analysis where the statute is ambiguous. The issue here was whether a statute, which required that any termination of a beer distribution agreement be for good cause with an opportunity to cure, applied to both written and oral contracts. The court resolved the ambiguity in favor of protecting oral as well as written agreements.

 

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