Corporation Law – Page 14 – New York Appellate Digest

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that petitioner (Ciafone), an attorney, who used several buildings owned by his corporate entities for exterior signs promoting his law practice, engaged in unauthorized outdoor advertising and was properly penalized. Ciafone argued that the corporate entitles formed by him which owned the buildings were not “others” within the meaning of the NYC Administrative Code provision which defined an outdoor advertising company as an entity which makes advertising space available to “others:”

Administrative Code § 28-502.1 states that an OAC [outdoor advertising company] is “[a] person, corporation, partnership or other business entity that as a part of the regular conduct of its business engages in or, by way of advertising, promotions or other methods, holds itself out as engaging in the outdoor advertising business.” An Outdoor Advertising Business is “[t]he business of selling, leasing, marketing, managing, or otherwise either directly or indirectly making space on signs situated on buildings and premises within the city of New York available to others for advertising purposes, whether such advertising directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered on the same or a different zoning lot . . . .” … .

… [P]etitioners, which are corporations, made space on signs available to Ciafone’s law practice (a professional corporation), a separate and distinct entity. Of course, it is fundamental that individuals, corporations, and partnerships are each recognized as separate legal entities, and in this statutory context constitute “others” regardless of the common principal ownership or connection between the entities. Indeed, “[a]s a general rule, the law treats corporations as having an existence separate and distinct from that of their shareholders”… . …

ECB [New York City Environmental Control Board] rationally rejected petitioners’ argument that they had not made the signs available to “others.” The record shows that the building owners are not Ciafone or Ciafone P.C, but separate corporate entities, and that the advertising signs promoted legal services by Ciafone, not any services of the corporate entities that own the buildings. Contrary to petitioners’ argument, there is no basis for overturning ECB’s determination that, in these circumstances, the advertising space was made available “to others.” Nor is ECB’s interpretation of the statutory language arbitrary or irrational. Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 05407, First Dept 7-19-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/ADVERTISING (SIGNS, MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))

July 19, 2018

Arbitration, Contract Law, Corporation Law

ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the individual defendants, officers or employees of the corporate defendant, are entitled to enforce the arbitration provision of the contract, even though they were not signatories:

The individual defendants, who were officers or employees of [defendant corporation] and did not sign the [agreement] in their individual capacities, are nevertheless entitled to enforce the arbitration provision, because any breach of the [agreement] would have to be the result of an action or inaction attributable to them. A rule allowing corporate officers and employees to enforce arbitration agreements entered into by the corporate principal “is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement” … . Further, even a nonsignatory may be estopped from avoiding arbitration where he knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement with an arbitration clause … . Huntsman Intl. LLC v Albemarle Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04962, First Dept 7-3-18

CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/ARBITRATION (CORPORATION LAW, CONTRACT LAW, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, ARBITRATION, ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, DID NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))

July 3, 2018

Corporation Law, Partnership Law

A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a partnership cannot operate through an existing corporate structure:

Plaintiffs operated a court reporting partnership from 1975 to 1999. Upon dissolution of the partnership, they agreed to consolidate their business with defendant, an existing court reporting corporation … . * * *

… [A] party “cannot recover on a claim that he [or she] and [another individual] entered into a joint venture to be set up and run through the corporate . . . structure” … . “[A]s a general rule, a partnership may not exist where the business is conducted in a corporate form, as each is governed by a separate body of law . . . Parties may not be partners between themselves while using the corporate shield to protect themselves against personal liability” … . Although that rule has been qualified “so as not to preclude members of a preexisting joint venture from acting as partners between themselves and as a corporation to the rest of the world,’ ” that qualification is inapplicable here because defendant [corporation] was formed before the partnership was allegedly created by an oral agreement … . In other words, “there was no preexisting joint venture that later spawned the creation of a corporation in which aspects of the joint venture could survive” … . Bianchi v Midtown Reporting Serv., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04895, Fourth Dept 6-28-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT))/JOINT VENTURES (A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT))

June 29, 2018

Corporation Law, Debtor-Creditor

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not show that there was a continuity of ownership such that, pursuant to the de facto merger doctrine, the assets of defendant NYP Ag should be used to satisfy a judgment against NYP Management:

“Traditionally, courts have considered several factors in determining whether a de facto merger has occurred: (1) continuity of ownership; (2) a cessation of ordinary business and dissolution of the predecessor as soon as practically and legally possible; (3) assumption by the successor of the liabilities ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of the business of the predecessor; and (4) a continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operation” … . …

… [C]ourts have flexibility in determining whether a transaction constitutes a de facto merger. While factors such as shareholder and management continuity will be evidence that a de facto merger has occurred . . . , those factors alone should not be determinative” … . … “[I]n non-tort actions, continuity of ownership is the essence of a merger’ ” … , and is a necessary predicate to finding a de facto merger… Here, inasmuch as [plaintiff] failed to establish continuity of ownership, it failed to establish that there was a de facto merger between the two corporations … . R&D Electronics, Inc. v NYP Mgt., Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04151, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CORPORATION LAW, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))/DE FACTOR MERGER (CORPORATION LAW, DEBTOR-CREDITOR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))

June 8, 2018

Agency, Corporation Law, Real Estate, Real Property Law

FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the ostensible president the corporation (Lowbet) which owned an apartment building, Liu, had the apparent authority to sell the building, and the buyer, 44th Street Realty, was a bona fide purchaser. Although Liu had been removed as president and replaced by petitioner, that information was not provided to the Department of State Division of Corporations:

The petitioner and Liu married in 1985 and then separated in 1995, after which the petitioner moved to China. Since 1995, Liu has run the day-to-day business of Lowbet, with the petitioner’s knowledge and consent. In August 2006, Liu was removed as president of Lowbet and the petitioner and his son were named president and vice president, respectively. However, the petitioner did not update this information with the Department of State Division of Corporations.

44th Street Realty established, prima facie, that the subject deed was only voidable, not void ab initio, since the petitioner alleged that Liu’s signature and authority to convey were acquired by fraudulent means, but did not allege that Liu’s signature was forged … .

44th Street Realty also established, prima facie, that Liu was cloaked with apparent authority to sign the deed on behalf of Lowbet. The petitioner had condoned Liu’s unfettered control and operation of the day-to-day business of Lowbet, which gave rise to the appearance that Liu possessed authority to enter into a real estate transaction on behalf of Lowbet … . Under the circumstances, 44th Street Realty’s reliance upon the appearance of Liu’s authority was reasonable … .

Further, 44th Street Realty made a prima facie showing that it was a bona fide purchaser by demonstrating that it had paid valuable consideration for the property, in good faith and without knowledge of any alleged fraud by Liu … . Real Property Law §§ 266 and 291 protect the title of a bona fide purchaser for value who lacks knowledge of fraud by the grantor or affecting the grantor’s title … . 44th Street Realty’s submissions established that it had no knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to inquire about possible fraud … . Matter of Shau Chung Hu v Lowbet Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03529, Second Dept 5-16-18

REAL ESTATE (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (BONA FIDE PURCHASER, APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/AGENCY (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/APPARENT AUTHORITY (REAL ESTATE, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/BONA FIDE PURCHASER (REAL ESTATE, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))

May 16, 2018

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Corporation Law, Defamation

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department found that a defendant company, IAI, which operates in Israel, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under the theory that defendant IAINA, which operates in New York, was a department of IAI. The court explained the relevant criteria. The court further held that a common interest privilege (with respect to alleged defamatory remarks regarding the plaintiff, defendant IAINA’s employee) does not insulate defendant from the alleged breach of a contractual non-disparagement clause:

Defendants established that IAI North America, Inc. (IAINA), which does business in the State of New York, is not a mere department of IAI, which operates primarily in Israel, and therefore that jurisdiction over IAINA is not jurisdiction over IAI … . The key executive personnel of the subsidiary were not assigned to their positions by the foreign parent, the subsidiary trained its own personnel, the parent did not write and publish all of the sales literature used by the subsidiary, and the subsidiary prepared its own financial statements … . … While IAINA is a wholly owned subsidiary of IAI, common ownership is “intrinsic to the parent-subsidiary relationship and, by [itself], not determinative”… . IAINA showed that it observed corporate formalities. Nothing in plaintiff’s affirmation indicates that IAI interferes in the selection and assignment of IAINA’s executive personnel, and the CEO of IAINA denied this. He also denied that IAI controlled IAINA’s marketing and operational policies. Plaintiff claimed that IAI had control over the approval of IAINA’s annual budget during the 11 years he worked at IAINA. However, this does not suffice … . …

IAINA … contends that the cause of action for breach of a non-disparagement clause should be dismissed because, even if it made disparaging remarks about plaintiff (its former employee), the remarks were privileged. However, the common interest privilege it relies on — which is part of the law of defamation — does not apply to a claim for breach of a non-disparagement clause … . Wolberg v IAI N. Am., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03321, First Dept 5-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATIONS (JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAMATION (NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

May 8, 2018

Civil Procedure, Corporation Law

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should not have been granted. Although defendant foreign corporation did not have a place of business in New York County, it had designated New York County as the location of its business in its filing with the Secretary of State:

Wakefern, a foreign corporation, submitted a copy of its application for authorization to conduct business filed with the Secretary of State, in which it identified New York County as “[t]he county within this state where its office is to be located” … . Wakefern’s designation of New York County in its application is controlling for venue purposes, even if it does not actually have an office in New York County … . Janis v Janson Supermarkets LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03333, First Dept 5-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

May 8, 2018

Civil Procedure, Corporation Law, Workers' Compensation

WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the relation-back doctrine did not apply to the attempts to amend the complaint in this Worker’s Compensation trust action. The trust was formed as self-insurance for Workers’ Compensation claims, but was determined to owe the Workers’ Compensation Board $220 million. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here. It comprehensively addresses the criteria for amending complaints, the relation-back doctrine, the General Business Law section 350 cause of action, and the corporate alter ego (piercing the corporate veil) pleading requirements:

“[T]he rule on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that the movant need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment and, in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . A claim is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit where it would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. …

Where the issue is whether a claim may be interposed against a defendant who was named as a party before the statute of limitations expired, the query is limited to whether the earlier complaint “gave notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” … . …

“The relation back doctrine permits a [plaintiff] to amend a [complaint] to add a [defendant] even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the [plaintiff] can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added [defendant] is united in interest with a previously named [defendant], and (3) that the later-added [defendant] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [plaintiff] as to the later-added [defendant’s] identity, the [action] would have also been brought against him or her” … . …

The corporate veil will be pierced and liability imposed when either (1) there is complete domination of a corporation by an individual or another corporation with respect to the transaction being attacked that resulted in a fraud or wrong against the complaining party, or (2) “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” … . Here, the proposed complaint alleges only that [the two entities] had common owners, officers and directors and that they shared the same office space, addresses and telephone numbers. Such allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to plead the elements required to establish alter ego liability … . Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03196, Third Dept 5-3-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PLEADING, ALTER EGO, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTER EGO (CORPORATION LAW, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATE VEIL, PIERCING (PLEADING, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 (PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

May 3, 2018

Corporation Law, Employment Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets, Unfair Competition

IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over an extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the “cost avoidance” measure of damages should not be applied in this misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment action. Plaintiff proved at trial that former employees defected to defendant rival company, bringing trade secrets with them. Plaintiff’s only proof of damages was its expert’s opinion about how much it would have cost the rival company to develop the product without the misappropriated trade secrets (“avoided costs”):

… [T]he measure of damages in a trade secret action must be designed, as nearly as possible, to restore the plaintiff to the position it would have been in but for the infringement. Whether those losses are measured by the defendant’s profits, revenues, cost savings or any other measure of unjust gain, there is “no presumption of law or of fact” that such a figure will adequately approximate the losses incurred by the plaintiff … . A plaintiff therefore may not elect to measure its damages by the defendant’s avoided costs in lieu of its own losses. * * *

… [D]amages in trade secret actions must be measured by the losses incurred by the plaintiff, and … damages may not be based on the infringer’s avoided development costs. * * *

… .[W]here a defendant saves, through its unlawful activities, costs and expenses that otherwise would have been payable to third parties, those avoided third-party payments do not constitute funds held by the defendant “at the expense of” the plaintiff. Therefore, a plaintiff bringing an unjust enrichment action may not recover as compensatory damages the costs that the defendant avoided due to its unlawful activity in lieu of the plaintiff’s own losses. E.J. Brooks Co. v Cambridge Sec. Seals, 2018 NY Slip Op 03171, CtApp 5-3-18

CORPORATION LAW (MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP))/TRADE SECRETS (MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP))/UNFAIR COMPETITION (MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP))/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP))/DAMAGES (AVOIDED COSTS, (MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP))/AVOIDED COSTS (DAMAGES, MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP))/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP))

May 3, 2018

Corporation Law, Workers' Compensation

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant property owner was the alto ego of plaintiff’s employer (Fox Run) and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy for his on the job injury was under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff worked on a farm and was injured when he fell from a hayloft:

… [W]e conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that it was the alter ego of Fox Run. Defendant and Fox Run were single-member-owned LLCs that were created on the same day “for a single purpose[,] to operate a horse stable business” … . Both defendant and Fox Run had the same individual owner … , and shared the same insurance policy … . Defendant had “[n]o separate set of [financial] books” and “no separate accounting or tax reporting”… .

In addition, defendant had no employees … and “was formed solely for the purpose of owning the premises upon which plaintiff’s employer . . . operate[d]” its horse farm … . Fox Run leased property from no one other than defendant, there was no written lease agreement, and Fox Run did not pay any rent to defendant … . Finally, Fox Run’s owner paid defendant’s property taxes as well as the operating expenses of the property … . Buchwald v 1307 Porterville Rd., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03006, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

April 27, 2018