On August 22, 2018, Judge Vignuolo of the Middlesex County Superior Court (Law Division) issued a decision in Babulal v. Dynamic Metals Processing, Inc., Docket No. L-1508-14, analyzing whether two defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing claims based on successor liability, explaining: We turn now to the substance of Gary Metal and Gary Machinery’s... Read more »
Blogs
Posts Categorized: Veil-piercing
Claim Based on Alter Ego Theory Survives Motion to Dismiss
On July 2, 2018, Justice Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Aspire Music Group, LLC v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op. 31444(U), refusing to dismiss a claim based on an alter ego theory of equitable ownership, explaining: Aspire has adequately alleged that Universal is the equitable... Read more »
Veil Piercing Claims Should Have Been Dismissed
On June 12, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc. v. ASICS America Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op. 04291, holding that veil piercing claims should have been dismissed, explaining: There is no basis in the complaint and supporting materials for applying the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, which... Read more »
Judge Korman Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Action to Enforce Settlement of Prior Federal ERISA Lawsuit
Posted by Solomon N. Klein, Litigation Partner It is often advisable when a case is settled to have the same court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement in the event of a breach. However, as illustrated in a decision last week by District Judge Edward R. Korman*, the enforcement of a settlement agreement is... Read more »
Court Will Ignore Corporate Form When it is Used to Perpetrate a Fraud
On April 7, 2017, Justice Dufficy of the Queens County Commercial Division issued a decision in Nandlal v. Al-Pros Construction, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op. 50620(U), disregarding the corporate form because it was used to perpetrate a fraud, explaining: Having been barred from performing home-improvement work in the State of New York, the individual defendant,... Read more »
Domination, Without Fraud or Bad Act, Insufficient to Prove Veil Piercing Claim
On December 14, 2016, the Second Department issued a decision in Vivir of L I, Inc. v. Ehrenkranz, 2016 NY Slip Op. 08393, affirming a holding that defendants had failed to prove their entitlement to pierce the corporate veil so as to hold a party’s principal personally liable, explaining: The general rule is that a... Read more »
Allegations of Deceit or Wrongdoing Necessary for Veil Piercing Claim
On October 20, 2016, the First Department issued a decision in Pensmore Investments, LLC. v Gruppo, Levey & Co., 2016 NY Slip Op. 06899, holding that allegations of deceit or wrongdoing are necessary to allege a veil piercing claim, explaining: Plaintiff established a likelihood of success on its veil piercing claim by showing that defendants... Read more »
Control and Domination Alone Insufficient to Justify Alter Ego Liability
On June 14, 2016, the First Department issued a decision in Cornwall Management Ltd. v. Kambolin, 2016 NY Slip Op. 04680, dismissing a claim based on alter ego liability, explaining: The allegations that defendants Kambolin and Atlant Capital Holdings controlled and dominated defendant Thor United are insufficient to state a cause of action for alter... Read more »
Corporate Veil Pierced Only Where Owner’s Complete Domination Used to Commit Fraud or Wrong
On May 31, 2016, the First Department issued a decision in JTS Trading Ltd. v. Trinity White City Ventures Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op. 04138, holding that a plaintiff had failed adequately to plead a basis for piercing the corporate veil, explaining: The court properly declined to pierce the corporate veil to attach the properties... Read more »
Plaintiff Not Required to Plead Elements of Alter Ego Liability With Particularity
On February 16, 2016, the First Department issued a decision in 2406-12 Amsterdam Associates LLC v. Alianza LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01110, holding that a plaintiff was not required to plead the elements of alter ego liability with particularity, explaining: Plaintiff was not required to plead the elements of alter ego liability with the... Read more »