You are here: / Corporation Law
,

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

 

, , ,

From the Point When a Director’s Position Becomes Adverse to the Corporation, the Director Is Not Entitled to Discovery of the Corporation’s Attorney-Client Communications

Plaintiff was both a shareholder in and a director of defendant corporation. In her role as a shareholder, plaintiff brought a special proceeding to compel the corporation to pay the fair market value of her shares pursuant to Business Corporation Law section 623.  The special proceeding was prompted by the corporation’s sale of a 65% interest in the business to a third-party investor—a sale to which plaintiff objected.  During the course of discovery, the defendant corporation’s lawyers turned over thousands of documents to the plaintiff.  Included in those documents were attorney-client communications which took place after plaintiff had voiced her strong objection to the sale of the 65% interest in the business. The motion court determined that the plaintiff, as a director, was a corporate insider by definition, and was therefore entitled to all the corporation’s attorney-client communications, even those communications which took place after she voiced her opposition to the sale.  The First Department reversed.  The Court determined that, once plaintiff objected to the sale and hired her own attorney, her interests became “adverse” to those of the corporation, and she was not entitled to the attorney-client communications made after that point. [There is a long dissent arguing that, pursuant to CPLR 5511, the appellants were not aggrieved by the ruling appealed from and, therefore, the First Department did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.] Barasch v Williams Real Estate Co. 2013 NY Slip Op 01613, 7405, 500054/09, 1st Dept. 3-14-13

 

, ,

Condominium Unit Owner Has Common Law Right to Examine Books

Although a condominium unit owner is not entitled under the Business Corporation Law to examine the books and records of a condominium, an unincorporated association governed by the Real Property Law, there is a common law right of a stockholder to examine the books and records of a corporation. Because the unit owners of a condominium own the common elements of the condominium and are responsible for common expenses, the common law right of a stockholder to examine the books applies to a unit owner of a condominium.  Pomerance v McGrath, 650129/11, 9454, 1st Dept. 3-7-13

 

,

Service Upon Employee Did Not Confer Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation

The Second Department held that service upon an employee who was not an officer, director, managing agent, cashier, or an agent authorized to accept service, did not confer jurisdiction over a corporation, and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted.  Fernandez v Town of Babylon …, Omni Recycling of Babylon, Inc., 2012-05513, Index No 4102/01, 2nd Dept. 3-6-13

 

,

“Alter Ego” of Entity Which Employed Plaintiff Protected by Worker’s Compensation Law.

“The protection against lawsuits brought by injured workers that is afforded to employers by Workers’ Compensation Law [sections] 22 and 29(6) also extends to entities that are alter egos of the entity which employs the plaintiff …”. Quizhpe vs Luvin Construction Corp., 2012-01175, Index No. 21761/06 Second Dept. 2-6-13

 

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