You are here: / Corporation Law

Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Veil

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli (which dealt with many corporation law issues not mentioned here), the First Department determined the complaint alleged sufficient facts to meet the criteria for piercing the corporate veil:

To make out a cause of action for liability on the theory of piercing the corporate veil because the corporation at issue is the defendant’s alter ego, the complaining party must, above all, establish that the owners of the entity, through their domination of it, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the party asserting the claim such that a court in equity will intervene … . Piercing of the corporate veil is not a cause of action independent of that against the corporation; it is established when the facts and circumstances compel a court to impose the corporate obligation on its owners, who are otherwise shielded from liability… . “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” … . Indeed, this Court has observed:  “In determining the question of control, courts have considered factors such as the disregard of corporate formalities; inadequate capitalization; intermingling of funds; overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel; common office space or telephone numbers; the degree of discretion demonstrated by the alleged dominated corporation; whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers; and the payment or guarantee of the corporation’s debts by the dominating entity . . . [n]o one factor is dispositive”… .   Tap Holdings LLC v Orix Fin Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05293, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

, , ,

Only Attorney Can Represent Voluntary Association—Appeals Dismissed

In dismissing the appeals, the First Department held that only an attorney can represent a voluntary association

Petitioner is a voluntary association comprised of rent-regulated tenants in the subject building. Patricia Pillette is a member of the association and appears pro se purportedly on behalf of the association. However, Pillette is not an attorney, and a voluntary association may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York (see CPLR 321[a]). Accordingly, petitioner’s failure to appear by attorney requires dismissal of the appeals… .  Matter of Tenants Comm of 36 Gramercy Park v NYS Div of Hous & Community Renewal, 2013 NY Slip Op 04984, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

, ,

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Allegations Not Specific Enough

The First Department determined plaintiff’s allegations in support of a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action were not specific enough to survive a motion to dismiss:

Because the underlying allegations of wrongdoing were inadequately pleaded, the fiduciary breach and injunction causes of action were not sustainable. Although plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendant tried to prevent her from having any meaningful participation in the companies’ operation, her allegations are vague and conclusory, made without any specific instances of the alleged misconduct…. The lack of particularity with respect to plaintiff’s allegations of breach of fiduciary duty (CPLR 3016[b]) is not excused by the individual defendant’s alleged refusal to provide information or by the lack of discovery, as information regarding the alleged denial of participation in corporate management was not solely in the individual defendant’s possession…. Moreover, plaintiff failed to assert specific dates that she had requested information, or to specify the information she had requested….  Berardi v Beradi, 2013 NY Slip Op 04976, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

,

Elements of Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The Second Department explained the elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty in the context of the board of directors of a corporation and the business judgment rule:

A cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty must be pleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b)”…. “The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct”… . Members of a board of directors of a corporation “owe a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders in general and to individual shareholders in particular to treat all shareholders fairly and evenly”….

The business judgment rule “bars judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes”… .   Deblinger v Sani-Pine Prods Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03963, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

No Standing to Bring Judicial Dissolution Action; Could Not Demonstrate 50% Ownership​

In upholding Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner did not have standing to bring the judicial dissolution action because 50% ownership of the corporation stock (by the petitioner) was not demonstrated, the Third Department explained the relevant review process:

As  the  party  seeking  judicial dissolution of the corporation, petitioner bore the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence his standing to seek such relief based on  his ownership of at least one half of the votes of all of Sunburst’s  outstanding  shares  (see  Business  Corporation  Law§ 1104 [a]…).Our review of Supreme Court’s determination, made after a hearing, “is not limited to whether [its] findings were supported by credible evidence; rather, if it appears that a finding different from that of Supreme Court is not unreasonable, we must weigh the probative force of the conflicting evidence and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may  be drawn, and grant judgment as warranted” …. However, deference is given to the trial court’s credibility determinations, as that court “had the advantage of observing the witnesses firsthand and was in a better position to assess the evidence and weigh credibility” … .  Matter of Dissolution of Sunburst Associates, Inc v Vilardi, 515011, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

, , ,

The Term “Release” (Re Hazardous Substances) Did Not Apply to Migration of Hazardous Substance to Neighbor’s Property Underground​

The Third Department determined there were two equally plausible interpretations of the term “sellers” as used in the contract, rendering the contract ambiguous.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint prior to discovery was properly denied. In addition, the Third Department determined that the term “release” (re: hazardous substances) did not extend to the migration of hazardous substances to neighboring properties under ground:

…[The provision] requires  indemnification  for environmental  claims  related  to, among other things, a “Release” of hazardous substances “at locations other than [500 Beech].” “Release”  is defined  to include  “any  spilling, leaking, pumping,  pouring,  emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, dumping  or disposing of any Hazardous  Material  into  the  environment.” In its Canadian action, the neighbor alleged that contaminants – which would be classified as “Hazardous Materials” under the agreement – in the ground  at 500 Beech migrated into the soil and  groundwater at 606 Beech. There is no allegation that hazardous substances were spilled, leaked or otherwise disposed of directly onto the property at 606 Beech. Rather, the allegation is that the flow of underground water carried those substances from 500 Beech, where they had been spilled or leaked, to the neighboring property. Although the hazardous substances eventually wound up at 606 Beech, there is no support for an allegation that the “Release” of those substances occurred at a location other than 500 Beech. Vectron International, Inc, v Corning Oak Holding, Inc, 515408, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

, ,

Criteria for Holding Parent Company Liable for Torts of Subsidiary

In a products liability case, the Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the parent company could be liable for the torts of a subsidiary.  The relevant legal standard was described as follows:

Liability of a parent company for the torts of a subsidiary does not arise from the mere ownership of a controlling shareholder interest. “Rather ‘there must be direct intervention by the parent in the management of the subsidiary to such an extent that the subsidiary’s paraphernalia of incorporation, directors and officers are completely ignored'” … .   The  parent  company  must  “exercise[] complete  dominion  and  control over the subsidiary” ….  Goodspeed, et al, v Hudson Sharp Machine Company, 515490, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

,

Usual Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Applied in Fraudulent Conveyance Action

The First Department determined the “pierce the corporate veil” causes of action should be dismissed, applying the usual “pierce the corporate veil” criteria in a “fraudulent conveyance” case:

“In order for a plaintiff to state a viable claim against a shareholder of a corporation in his or her individual capacity for actions purportedly taken on behalf of the corporation, plaintiff must allege facts that, if proved, indicate that the shareholder 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” … . “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 … . In opposition to the [defendants’] motion for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence of the above factors. Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, the factors mentioned [above] remain relevant even in a fraudulent conveyance case … .  D’Mel & Associates v Athco, Inc, et al, 9713, 602486/09, 1st Dept 4-4-13

 

,

No Need to Be a Shareholder to Bring an Action Pursuant to BCL 720(b)

The Second Department noted there is no need to be a shareholder at the time a disputed resolution was adopted to bring an action for waste or breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to Business Corporation Law 720(b):

Unlike Business Corporation Law § 626, which authorizes a shareholder to bring a derivative action in the right of the corporation, Business Corporation Law § 720(b) authorizes a corporation, or an officer or director thereof, to commence an action to redress corporate waste or breach of fiduciary duty owed by officers and directors of the corporation … . While Business Corporation Law § 626(b) requires the plaintiff to be a shareholder at the time of the transaction of which he or she complains, there is no similar rule when a corporation, a director, or an officer commences an action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720(b) … . Gabel v Gabel, 2013 NY Slip Op 02050, 2011-10621, Index No 9839/10, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

, , ,

Owner/Officer of Company Can Be Personally Liable for Toxic Emissions Released by Company.

Plaintiffs brought an action for personal injuries and property damage allegedly caused by toxic emissions released by defendant Tonawanda Coke Corporation.  An owner and officer of Tonawanda Coke (Crane) moved to dismiss the cause of action suing him in an individual capacity.  In affirming the denial of that motion, the Fourth Department wrote:

Although “[a] corporate officer is not held liable for the negligence of the corporation merely because of his official relationship[,]” that officer will be held liable if it is established “that the officer was a participant in the wrongful conduct” … .Plaintiffs alleged in the first amended complaint that Crane was or should have been aware of the relevant environmental regulations, was ultimately responsible for reporting benzene emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency, and personally supervised and exercised control over Tonawanda Coke’s operations … .Thus, plaintiffs have alleged that Crane actively participated in the wrongful conduct by approving the policies that allegedly caused the environmental contamination … .   Abbot v Tonawanda Coke Corporation, et al, 155, CA 12-01384, Fourth Dept. 3-15-13

 

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