You are here: / Corporation Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add allegations supporting “piercing the corporate veil” in this breach of contract action should have been granted:

“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” … . “Because a decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, the New York cases may not be reduced to definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when the power may be exercised” … . However, “[g]enerally, 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 plaintiff must adequately allege the existence of corporate obligation and that defendant exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice” … . “[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego. In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, [g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form” … . Another factor to be considered is whether the corporation and its owners shared “common office space” … . “A cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not required to meet any heightened level of particularity in its allegations” … , and “a fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC v Franklin Exhibit Mgt. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02330, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of the criteria for “piercing the corporate veil” in the context of a motion to amend the complaint to add the relevant allegations.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging that the corporate veil should be pierced should not have been dismissed. The complaint alleged failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds:

“To survive a motion to dismiss the complaint, a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must allege facts that, if proved, establish that the party against whom the doctrine is asserted (1) exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) through such domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiff such that a court in equity will intervene” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate or LLC form include the failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds” … . “Additionally, the corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . “[A] fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . Goldberg v KOSL Bldg. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01790, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the allegations in the complaint that defendant failed to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequately capitalized the corporate entities, commingled assets, and personally used LLC funds sufficiently supported plaintiff’s seeking to pierce the corporate veil.

 

, ,

THE RELIGIOUS NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THE TORAH READER AND HIS FAMILY, WAS ENTITLED TO A REAL-PROPERTY-TAX EXEMPTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined the not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence used by Marcus, the Torah reader, and his family:​

This appeal provides this Court with an opportunity to clarify the standards courts should consider when deciding whether a covered not-for-profit corporation is entitled to a full tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a for property allegedly utilized primarily in furtherance of exempt purposes. The circumstances presented here involve an Orthodox Jewish religious corporation seeking an exemption for a residential property used, inter alia, to house its Torah reader and his family. … [W]e conclude … that the petitioner demonstrated that the subject property was used primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes during the 2015 tax year. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition to review the real property tax assessment for that year. * * *

… [T]he petitioner’s submissions established that it offered Marcus housing within walking distance of the synagogue in order to continue to retain his expert services as a Torah reader, as his religious beliefs prohibited him from driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath and on Jewish holy days, and he had a growing family which made walking from his prior apartment impractical … . The petitioner’s rabbi also stated that, upon learning that Marcus could not continue in his role as Torah reader without residing closer to the synagogue, “[t]he congregation was unable to identify any qualified Torah [r]eader within walking distance [thereof].” Considering … that “[t]he requirement of reading from the Torah” during services “is absolute and cannot be waived,” as explained by the rabbi, the petitioner’s religious “goal[s]” were “advance[d]” by providing Marcus with housing closer to the synagogue … . Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v Town/Village of Harrison, 2025 NY Slip Op 01634, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence provided to the Torah reader and his family because the residence was used “primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes” during the relevant tax year.​

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant owner of defendant corporation (Tatiana Batin) and the corporation (Godess … Spa …) were not properly served with the summons and complaint in this action alleging an employee of defendant corporation sexually abused plaintiff during a massage:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Batin was properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The hearing evidence established that the address at which Batin was purportedly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) was neither her actual dwelling place nor her usual place of abode as of the purported date of service … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “‘[e]ven if a defendant eventually acquires actual notice of the lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain the service or subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction when there has not been compliance with prescribed conditions of service'” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Goddess was properly served pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1), which required delivery of the summons and complaint to “an officer, director, managing or general agent, or . . . any other agent authorized . . . to receive service.” “Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that Batin had been properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2), substituted service upon her pursuant to CPLR 308(2) would be insufficient to acquire personal jurisdiction over Goddess, as CPLR 311(a)(1) requires personal service directly upon a corporate representative … . Flatow v Goddess Sanctuary & Spa Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06029, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: At the hearing plaintiff did not prove defendant owner of defendant corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint by substitute service.

Practice Point: Personal jurisdiction over a corporation cannot be acquired by substitute service.

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED WAS AN AGENT OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; CLERK’S JUDGMENT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and vacating the clerk’s (default) judgment for over $420,000, determined the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate the person served with the summons and complaint was an agent of defendant corporation:

The plaintiff failed to establish that personal jurisdiction had been acquired over the defendant through proper service of process. Although a process server’s affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service … , here, the affidavit of service contained no indication that Lewis was an agent of the defendant authorized to accept service on the defendant’s behalf (see CPLR 311[1][a] …). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the clerk’s judgment. Bold Broadcasting, LLC v Wawaloam Reservation, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05196, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: Here the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate the person served with the summons and complaint had the authority to accept service for defendant corporation. The default judgment was vacated.​

 

,

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT CORPORATION ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ACTION IN TIME TO DEFEND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted. Defendant’s address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect and defendant alleged it did not receive actual notice of the action in time to defend. There was no evidence the failure to update the address on file with the Secretary of State was intentional, and defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense:

Pursuant to CPLR 317, a party that was not personally served may defend against an action if it demonstrates that it did not have notice of the action in time to defend and that it has a meritorious defense … . “Service upon a corporation through delivery of the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State is not ‘personal delivery’ to the corporation” … .

Here, the defendant established its entitlement to relief from its default under CPLR 317 by demonstrating that the address on file with the Secretary of State at the time the summons and complaint were served was incorrect and, consequently, that it did not receive actual notice of the action in time to defend itself … . Further, “the evidence does not suggest that the defendant’s failure to update its address with the Secretary of State constituted a deliberate attempt to avoid service of process” … , and there is some evidence in the record suggesting that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant’s actual business address … . Galatro v Lake Pointe Owners, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04375, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: Here defendant corporation’s failure to update its address for service of process on file with the Secretary of State was deemed unintentional. The corporation’s motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground it was not aware of the action should have been granted.

 

, , ,

HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the purported medical malpractice by a corporation (Meeting House) under a piercing-the-corporate-veil 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” … . “‘[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego'” … . In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, “[g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form, such that one of the corporations is a mere instrumentality, agent and alter ego of the other” … .

… Meeting House failed to adhere to corporate formalities, such as holding board of directors’ meetings. Meeting House was owned and controlled by an employee of the hospital, whose office was in the hospital, pursuant to a contract with the hospital. The hospital had sole discretion over the number of shares and who would be the shareholders. Meeting House was also undercapitalized, since it appears that its assets consisted of a non-interest-bearing loan from the hospital … . Its budget and any amendments thereto had to be approved by the hospital. The common ownership, leadership, and control, and the common location on the grounds of the hospital and in the hospital itself, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the corporate veil should be pierced … . Midson v Meeting House Lane Med. Practice, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 04261, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for what it takes to raise a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced in support of a vicarious liability theory.

 

, ,

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, THE NONRECOURSE CLAUSE PRECLUDED THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; PLAINTIFF HAD WON AN ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR OVER $200 MILLION AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION AFTER DEFENDANT FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the nonrecourse clause in the contract between two sophisticated, commercial parties precluded plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff had won an arbitration award for over $200 million against defendant (Footprint) and this suit against Footprint’s principals was brought after Footprint filed for bankruptcy:

Plaintiff, a sophisticated commercial actor, knew that it was entering into a significant contractual undertaking with a special-purpose entity, and the contract provided for a specific dispute-resolution mechanism — arbitration — that carried with it a risk that the special-purpose entity would not be able to satisfy an ensuing award. Plaintiff could have bargained for protections to avoid or mitigate losses occasioned by the conduct of a judgment-proof special-purpose entity (e.g., conditions on Footprint’s ability to draw on the letter of credit, a payment guaranty from one or more of defendants, a narrow nonrecourse provision), but it chose to enter into the contract as written … . We cannot provide rough justice to plaintiff by dint of distorting the plain meaning of the contract to relieve plaintiff of the consequences of its contractual arrangement … . Similarly, we cannot, under the guise of contractual interpretation, disturb the clear, detailed allocation-of-risk-of-economic-loss scheme agreed upon by the parties … . Ultimately, plaintiff got the benefit of its bargain: arbitration on its cognizable claims against Footprint, which proceeding yielded a sizable award that was converted to a judgment. Iberdrola Energy Projects v Oaktree Capital Mgt. L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 03798, First Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Sophisticated corporate commercial parties will be held to an unambiguous nonrecourse provision in their contract.​

 

, , ,

DISPUTES INVOLVING THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ARE RESOLVED UNDER THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF INCORPORATION (SCOTS LAW HERE); COURTS CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOREIGN LAW; HERE PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY UNDER SCOTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined (1) in international business disputes involving the internal affairs of foreign corporations, the law of the place of incorporation (Scots law here) applies; (2) the court can take judicial of the foreign law; and (3) plaintiffs stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law:

Consistent with our precedent, we clarify that the substantive law of a company’s place of incorporation presumptively applies to causes of action arising from its internal affairs. Moreover, because of the important interests that the internal affairs doctrine represents, we decline to create any broad exceptions to that presumption. Rather, in order to overcome this presumption and establish the applicability of New York law, a party must demonstrate both that (1) the interest of the place of incorporation is minimal—i.e., that the company has virtually no contact with the place of incorporation other than the fact of its incorporation, and (2) New York has a dominant interest in applying its own substantive law … . * * *

CPLR 4511 gives courts “substantial flexibility in determining whether to take judicial notice of foreign law and ascertaining its content” … . As the statutory language notes, a court must take judicial notice of foreign law upon request and if the court is furnished with sufficient information to do so; otherwise, a court may take judicial notice of foreign law in its discretion … . * * *

Plaintiffs’ allegations—viewed in their most favorable light and according them every possible favorable inference—are sufficient to state a claim that the director defendants at least owed limited fiduciary duties to plaintiffs. Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02841, CtApp 5-23-24

Practice Point: Disputes involving the internal affairs of foreign corporation are resolved under the law of the place of incorporation (Scots law here).

Practice Point: Courts can take judicial notice of foreign law.

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law.

 

, ,

AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the provision of the contract which prohibited plaintiffs from bringing a breach of contract suit was unambiguous. An unambiguous contract constitutes “documentary evidence” which supports a motion to dismiss:

On a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law … . A motion to dismiss based on a written agreement that contains a material ambiguity must be denied because such an agreement does not conclusively establish the asserted defense as a matter of law … . Ambiguity exists if the agreement, “read as a whole, fails to disclose its purpose and the parties’ intent . . ., or when specific language is ‘susceptible of two reasonable interpretations’ ” … . On the other hand, the agreement is unambiguous and should be enforced on its plain terms “if the language it uses has ‘a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception . . ., and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion’ ” … .

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Section 8.05 unambiguously bars them from commencing an action on their own behalf to enforce their third-party beneficiary rights under the Agreement. Section 8.05 negates any right of the Holders except as “expressly set forth” therein, and it expressly sets forth the right of the Required Holders or the Holder Committee to commence certain types of actions or proceedings. Nothing in Section 8.05 expressly sets forth a right of the Holders to commence an action on their own behalf or otherwise. Mulacek v ExxonMobil Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 02724, CtApp 5-16-24

Practice Point: Here the contract unambiguously limited the authority to bring a breach of contract action to a certain class of shareholders which did not include plaintiffs. The contract constituted “documentary evidence” which supported dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

 

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