Opinion
2012-01-24
POURQUOI M.P.S., INC., etc., appellant, v. WORLDSTAR INTERNATIONAL, LTD., et al., respondents.
Brown & Whalen, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Rodney A. Brown and Janine J. Wong of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Bing Li, LLC, New York, N.Y., for respondents.
Brown & Whalen, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Rodney A. Brown and Janine J. Wong of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Bing Li, LLC, New York, N.Y., for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover payment for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered July 28, 2010, as, upon an order of the same court entered October 21, 2009, among other things, denying that branch of its motion which was to strike the answer based on spoliation of evidence, and upon a decision of the same court dated May 18, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, in effect, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Sonya Chiang.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion which was to strike the answer based on spoliation of evidence ( see e.g. Lamb v. Maloney, 46 A.D.3d 857, 858, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138; Bjorke v. Rubenstein, 38 A.D.3d 580, 581, 833 N.Y.S.2d 115).
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and the Appellate Division may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” ( Bubba Gump Fish & Chips Corp. v. Morris, 90 A.D.3d 592, 933 N.Y.S.2d 723; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the evidence supported the Supreme Court's determination that the facts did not warrant piercing the corporate veil of the defendant Worldstar International, Ltd. (hereinafter Worldstar), in order to hold the defendant Sonya Chiang personally liable for Worldstar's debts to the plaintiff. In particular, the trial evidence did not demonstrate that Chiang used her domination of Worldstar with respect to the transactions at issue to commit a wrong against the plaintiff that caused its injury ( see Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157; see also Treeline Mineola, LLC v. Berg, 21 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 801 N.Y.S.2d 407; 210 E. 86th St. Corp. v. Grasso, 305 A.D.2d 156, 156, 758 N.Y.S.2d 654; see generally TNS Holdings v. MKI Sec. Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 335, 339–340, 680 N.Y.S.2d 891, 703 N.E.2d 749; Walkovszky v. Carlton, 18 N.Y.2d 414, 420, 276 N.Y.S.2d 585, 223 N.E.2d 6; cf. Matter of EAC of N.Y., Inc. v. Capri 400, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 1006, 1007–1008, 853 N.Y.S.2d 419; Hyland Meat Co. v. Tsagarakis, 202 A.D.2d 552, 553, 609 N.Y.S.2d 625; cf. generally Solow v. Domestic Stone Erectors, 269 A.D.2d 199, 200, 703 N.Y.S.2d 94; Chase Manhattan Bank [N.A.] v. 264 Water Street Assoc., 174 A.D.2d 504, 504, 571 N.Y.S.2d 281).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.