CHIOMENTI STUDIO LEGALE, L.L.C. v. PRODOS CAPITAL MGT. LLC, 140 A.D.3d 635 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160628414
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2016
Summary: The motion court correctly noted that "New York does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil" ( Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 15 A.D.3d 528 , 529 [2d Dept 2005], lv dismissed 4 N.Y.3d 882 [2005]; see also Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135 , 141 [1993]). Further, the motion court correctly dismissed the veil-piercing allegations, because there is insufficient evidence to justify piercing the
Summary: The motion court correctly noted that "New York does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil" ( Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 15 A.D.3d 528 , 529 [2d Dept 2005], lv dismissed 4 N.Y.3d 882 [2005]; see also Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135 , 141 [1993]). Further, the motion court correctly dismissed the veil-piercing allegations, because there is insufficient evidence to justify piercing the ..
More
The motion court correctly noted that "New York does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil" (Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 15 A.D.3d 528, 529 [2d Dept 2005], lv dismissed 4 N.Y.3d 882 [2005]; see also Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141 [1993]). Further, the motion court correctly dismissed the veil-piercing allegations, because there is insufficient evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual defendant liable for the corporate defendant's obligations. The evidence does not show that the individual defendant dominated or controlled the corporate defendant by undercapitalizing it, intermingling funds, disregarding the corporate form, or otherwise (Matter of Morris, 82 NY2d at 141; Tap Holdings, LLC v Orix Fin. Corp., 109 A.D.3d 167, 174 [1st Dept 2013]). Neither did plaintiff establish the existence of a fraud or wrong against it (id.). The corporate defendant's alleged failure to pay legal fees owed under the parties' agreement does not constitute a fraud or wrong sufficient to pierce the corporate veil (Bonacasa Realty Co., LLC v Salvatore, 109 A.D.3d 946, 947 [2d Dept 2013]).
Source: Leagle
