You are here: / Corporation Law
,

THE FACT THAT THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL WERE NOT MET DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER INDIVIDUALLY FOR PARTICIPATING IN AND BENEFITING FROM A TORT, HERE THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the fact that the criteria for piercing the corporate veil were not met did not preclude an action against a corporate officer individually if the officer participates in and benefits from the commission of a tort:

Supreme Court improperly dismissed the misappropriation of trade secrets cause of action as asserted against the individual defendants. In granting the motion to dismiss against those defendants, the court limited its analysis of their liability to the issue of whether they completely dominated the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked, finding that there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil. However, even where the corporate veil is not pierced, a corporate officer who participates in and benefits from the commission of a tort may still be held individually liable … . The record presents sufficient evidence regarding the individual defendants’ participation, for their own personal gain, in the corporate defendant’s allegedly tortious acts, thus raising issues of material fact as to their personal liability. Thus, the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets should be reinstated … . Century First Credit Solutions, Inc. v Priority Capital, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00224, First Dept 1-20-26

Practice Point: Here an action for misappropriation of trade secrets was properly brought against an corporate officer individually, despite the fact that the criteria for piercing the corporate veil were not met.

 

, ,

THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT SUPPORTED “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL;” PLAINTIFF ALLEGED FUNDS OWED TO HER WERE DIVERTED TO RENDER THE CORPORATION JUDGMENT PROOF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging alter-ego liability should not have been dismissed. The court noted that New York does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil, but in the context of a motion to dismiss, the issue is whether the facts fit any cognizable legal theory. Piercing the corporate veil is such a 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” … .

Initially, “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 [the corporation] judgment proof . . . are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of wrongdoing which is necessary to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory” … . When “legitimate business activity” is involved, we have sometimes required a plaintiff to allege that the dominator “engaged in th[e] conduct for the purpose of harming plaintiff” … . However, this requirement does not apply when “the defendant against whom alter ego liability [i]s asserted . . . commit[s] fraud and malfeasance” … .

In any event, giving plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences as required on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, she alleges that [defendant] caused the … funds owed to her to be diverted … in order to circumvent payment of the funds owed to her, which would render her judgment against the [the corporation] “nothing more than a pyrrhic victory” … . This allegation satisfies the “fraud or wrong” requirement of piercing the corporate veil … . Cohen v Cohen, 2026 NY Slip Op 00192, First Dept 1-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what type of “fraud or wrong” must be alleged in the complaint to support piercing the corporate veil.

 

 

,

TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL THE PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE (1) THE OWNERS EXERCISED COMPLETE DOMINATION OF THE CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE AND (2) THE DOMINATION WAS USED TO COMMIT A FRAUD OR WRONG AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF; HERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE WAS FRAUDULENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the complaint in this “pierce the corporate veil” action was properly dismissed because there was no evidence the recapitalization at issue was done to commit a fraud:

From the concurrence:

A court will disregard the corporate form and pierce the corporate veil when there is a showing by plaintiffs 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” … . Because the use of the corporate form to limit liability of owners is a legal and beneficial principle of corporations, those who seek to pierce the corporate veil bear a heavy burden … .

Here, [the] attempts to pierce the corporate veil fail to raise a triable issue on prong two. The … defendants met their initial burden on summary judgment to demonstrate that they did not abuse the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice, and [plaintiff] failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition. [Plaintiff] points to no evidence in the record that supports its claim that the 2006 recapitalization at issue was fraudulent. Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 2025 NY Slip Op 07078, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the two prongs of proof required to pierce the corporate veil: the owners must completely dominate the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and the transaction at issue must be fraudulent or wrongful with respect to the plaintiff.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST, THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER IN PLANTIFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, WHICH PAID PLAINTIFF ONCOLOGIST’S SALARY, SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COURT, IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, HELD THAT PLAINTIFF’S SALARY WAS NOT A CORPORATE EXPENSE AND THEREFORE WAS RECOVERABLE AS LOST PROFITS IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined plaintiff’s salary, paid to hm as the sole shareholder in a professional service corporation, was not a corporate expense and therefore could be recoverable as damages for lost profits in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff, a radiation oncologist, successfully sued the hospital for breach of contract after the hospital terminated him. The instant dispute is about the available damages. In addition to ruling plaintiff could recover his lost salary from his professional service corporation as damages, the Third Department held defendant could present proof plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding employment, through another professional service corporation, with another hospital. The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings:

Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting causes of action for, among others, breach of contract, wrongful termination, libel and slander. Following the completion of disclosure and motion practice, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on the four remaining causes of action for breach of contract. A jury trial on damages was scheduled, and the parties filed respective motions in limine disputing the method of calculating damages and whether evidence of ]plaintiffs’] duty to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury. Such dispute essentially distills to whether the salary paid by a professional service corporation to its sole shareholder must be treated as an expense in calculating the lost profits, thus subtracting it from the corporation’s profits and correspondingly reducing its damages. Supreme Court, in a pair of well-reasoned decisions, determined that [plaintiff’s] salary as paid by [plaintiff professional service corporation] under the coverage agreement is not an expense and could be recoverable as damages for lost profits. Supreme Court further found that evidence of [plaintiffs’] efforts to mitigate the damages suffered from defendant’s breach may be submitted to the jury, and whether or not [plaintiff’s] postbreach earnings are income derived because of defendant’s breach is a question to be resolved by the jury in determining damages. Radiation Oncology Servs. of Cent. N.Y., P.C. v Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06112, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Here, in a matter of first impression, the Third Department ruled that plaintiff oncologist, whose salary was paid by plaintiff professional service corporation in which plaintiff oncologist was the sole shareholder, could, in a breach of contract action, recover his lost salary as lost profits. In other words, in this situation, plaintiff’s salary was not considered to be a corporate expense which must be deducted from lost profits when calculating damages for breach of contract.

 

, ,

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.

 

, , ,

WITH RESPECT TO A RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN BE SUED BY A SHAREHOLDER FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, BUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS NOT AMENABLE TO SUIT APART FROM A SUIT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scarpulla, determined the board of directors of a residential cooperative is not amenable to a lawsuit separate and apart from a suit against the cooperative. Here plaintiff shareholder sued the board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty after the dismissal of a similar suit against the directors individually:

New York trial courts have explicitly held that a board of directors is not an entity that may be sued separately from the corporation … . * * *

Applying the Business Corporation Law … , the residential cooperative board of defendant … is not an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued separate and apart from the corporation on whose behalf it acts. * * *

While a shareholder cannot assert allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against a board of directors, a shareholder may assert the claim against the individual directors … . Here, plaintiff originally brought breach of fiduciary duty causes of action against fourteen of the individual board members and the corporation … . Those causes of action were largely dismissed, and plaintiff may not simply replace those parties with “the board” to revive those now dismissed claims. Tahari v 860 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05584, First Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: This opinion clarifies the law. The board of directors of a corporation is not amenable to suit for breach of a fiduciary duty separate and apart from a suit against the corporation. However, individual members of the board of directors may be sued for breach of a fiduciary duty.

 

, , , ,

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.

 

, , ,

THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the breach of contract (commercial lease) cause of action against defendant limited liability companies which had purchased the assets of the original lessee (another limited liability company) should not have been dismissed. The majority concluded the complaint stated a cause of action under the theory that defendants constituted a “mere continuation” of the original lessee. The dissent argued the “mere continuation” theory does not apply where, as here, there are two purchasers of the original lessee’s assets:

… [W]e find that plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract against [defendants] based on the “mere continuation” exception to the rule against successor liability. “Although no one factor is dispositive,” courts determining whether a successor corporation is a “mere continuation” of its predecessor have considered whether: (1) all or substantially all assets are transferred to the successor corporation; (2) the predecessor corporation has been effectively extinguished following the transaction; (3) the successor has assumed an identical or nearly identical name; (4) the successor has retained one or more of the same corporate officers, directors, and/or employees; and (5) the successor has continued the same business … . * * *

Neither the motion court nor defendants cite to any authority prohibiting application of mere continuation successor liability where more than one company has acquired the assets of the predecessor. We disagree with the dissent to the extent that it asserts that Schumacher (59 NY2d 239) stands for the proposition that the existence of more than one successor corporation necessarily bars application of the mere continuation doctrine. In Schumacher, there was only one successor … . Accordingly, it does not address the situation in the facts pleaded by plaintiff in this case. Avamer 57 Fee LLC v Hunter Boot USA LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04607, First Dept 8-7-25

Practice Point: The purchasers of a business which constitute a “mere continuation” of the seller’s business can be liable under a contract originally entered by the seller.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN OPEN REPUDIATION OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS; HERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUCH AN OPEN REPUDIATION; THE STATUTE NEVER BEGAN TO RUN AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that this shareholder derivative action, which alleged breach of fiduciary duty, should not have been dismissed as time barred. Open repudiation of the the fiduciary obligation, which triggers the running of the statute of limitations, never occurred:

To dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired” … . “[C]laims alleging a breach of fiduciary duty do not accrue until there is either an open repudiation of the fiduciary obligation or a judicial settlement of the account” … . This is so because, “absent either repudiation or removal, the aggrieved part[y] [is] entitled to assume that the fiduciary would perform his or her fiduciary responsibilities” … . “The party asserting the statute of limitations defense bears the burden of proof on the issue” … . “Open repudiation requires proof of a repudiation by the fiduciary which is clear and made known to the beneficiaries” … . “Where there is any doubt on the record as to the conclusive applicability of a [s]tatute of [l]imitations defense, the motion to dismiss the proceeding should be denied, and the proceeding should go forward” … .

Here, defendants did not proffer, or even assert, that they have openly repudiated their obligations as fiduciaries or that the relationship has otherwise terminated. Lambos v Karabinis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03367, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: Here there was never an open repudiation of fiduciary obligations so the statute of limitations on the breach-of-fiduciary-duty cause of action never began to run.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS” DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AND BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES IN BARCLAYS, AN ENGLISH CORPORATION, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING A DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF BARCLAYS AGAINST OFFICERS AND MANAGERS OF A NEW YORK AFFILIATE OF BARCLAYS IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, determined that the Business Corporation Law (BCL)  (sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2)) has not displaced the “internal affairs” doctrine, a choice-of-law rule providing that the substantive law of the place of incorporation governs disputes about the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ rulings that plaintiff, a New York corporation and a beneficial owner of shares in England-based Barclays, did not have standing to sue, on behalf of Barclays, directors and officers of Barclays New York-based affiliate in New York:

The corporation at the center of this appeal is Barclays PLC (Barclays), a bank holding company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales and headquartered in London. Plaintiff Ezrasons, Inc. is a New York corporation and a beneficial owner of Barclays shares. In 2021, plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of Barclays against almost four-dozen current and former Barclays directors and officers and a New York-based affiliate, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI). The complaint alleged that the individual defendants, aided and abetted by BCI, breached fiduciary duties owed to Barclays under English law, causing significant injuries to the company. * * *

Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, explaining that under the internal affairs doctrine, foreign law governs the question of whether a plaintiff has the right to sue corporate management on behalf of a foreign corporation. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the legislature intended to override that choice-of-law rule when it enacted sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2) of the BCL, agreeing with four decades of case law holding that those provisions “simply confer[] jurisdiction upon New York courts over derivative suits on behalf of out-of-state corporations, but do[ ] not require application of New York law in such suits” … .

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, agreeing with Supreme Court that plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this shareholder derivative action on behalf of Barclays … . … [T]he Appellate Division rejected plaintiff’s argument that sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2) displace the internal affairs doctrine and preclude application of English standing law … . Ezrasons, Inc. v Rudd, 2025 NY Slip Op 03008, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: Business Corporation Law sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2) do not displace the “internal affairs” doctrine which provides that the substantive law of the place of incorporation (England in this case) governs disputes about the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers. Here a New York corporation which holds shares of an English corporation could not sue the officers and managers of a New York affiliate of the English corporation in New York.​

 

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