From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Itamari v. Giordan Development Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 2002
298 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-08177

Submitted October 11, 2002.

October 28, 2002.

In an action to recover for services rendered, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated June 25, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Emeric Csengeri.

Josef Itamari, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Walter W. Schnorbus, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the respondent, Emeric Csengeri, the Supreme Court was not bound by the doctrine of law of the case to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as it was asserted against him in his individual capacity. A prior order of the same court, dated March 29, 2001, did not address the precise question of whether Csengeri may be liable on an alter-ego theory, and therefore did not constitute the law of the case on the issue of piercing the corporate veil (see People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 502; Castle v. Gaseteria Oil Corp., 263 A.D.2d 523, 523-524; Gilligan v. Reers, 255 A.D.2d 486, 487).

However, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, he failed to adequately allege, in either the amended complaint or in opposition to the motion to dismiss, facts demonstrating that Csengeri exercised sufficient domination and control over the defendant Giordan Development Corporation to warrant piercing the corporate veil (see Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141-142). Mere conclusory statements that a corporation is "dominated or controlled" by a shareholder are insufficient to sustain a cause of action against the shareholder in his individual capacity (see Abelman v. Shoratlantic Dev. Co., 153 A.D.2d 821, 823; Perez v. One Clark St. Hous. Corp., 108 A.D.2d 844, 845; Cusumano v. Iota Indus., 100 A.D.2d 892, 893). Accordingly, Csengeri may not be held liable to the plaintiff for the alleged obligations of Giordan Development Corporation (see Buehner v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 270 A.D.2d 299; W.H. Brownyard Corp. v. American Intl. Group, 237 A.D.2d 594; Finkel v. Blair Co., 213 A.D.2d 588).

O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Itamari v. Giordan Development Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 2002
298 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Itamari v. Giordan Development Corporation

Case Details

Full title:JOSEF ITAMARI, appellant, v. GIORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 28, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 678

Citing Cases

Cane v. Herman

(Sound Communications, Inc. v Rack & Roll, Inc., 88 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2011]). Conclusory allegations of…

Wright v. Dennis

(See Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v Triumph Advertising Prods., Inc., 116 AD2d 526 [1st Dept 1986];Itamari v…