20 Cited authorities

Morris v. Dept. of Taxation
82 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 1,418 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."
TNS Holdings, Inc. v. MKI Sec. Corp.
92 N.Y.2d 335 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 486 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "interrelatedness, standing alone, is not enough to subject a nonsignatory to arbitration"
Foley v. D'Agostino
21 A.D.2d 60 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964) Cited 739 times
Stating that “[t]hey may not assume and engage in the promotion of personal interests which are incompatible with the superior interests of their corporation.”
Quadrant Structured Prods. Co. v. Vertin
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4114 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 156 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that textual omissions in a "no-action clause" placed limits on the situations in which certain parties could and could not bring suit to enforce a contract
Tap Holdings, LLC v. Orix Finance Corp.
109 A.D.3d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 160 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding that res judicata did not preclude plaintiff's claim where previous dismissal "was premised on lack of standing to bring a derivative claim on behalf of [nonparty corporation], and not on the relevant merits"
Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. Atl. Yards B2 Owner, LLC
146 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) Cited 86 times 1 Legal Analyses
Dismissing veil-piercing claim where "plaintiff, a sophisticated party, admits that it knowingly entered into the CM Agreement with B2 Owner" and "cannot now claim that it was tricked into contracting with B2 owner only and thus should be allowed to assert claims against Forest City."
2406-12 Amsterdam Associates LLC v. Alianza LLC
136 A.D.3d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) Cited 27 times
Noting that a plaintiff is "not required to plead the elements of alter ego liability with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b)"
Holmes v. Allstate Corp.
11 Civ. 1543 (LTS) (DF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2012) Cited 29 times
Finding Plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent transfer against Defendants as a group, without specifying what conduct was attributable to each, failed to satisfy the pleading standard under Rule 8
Holme v. Global Minerals and Metals Corp.
63 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 31 times
In Holme v Global Minerals and Metals Corp. (63 AD3d 417, 418 [1st Dept 2009]), a recent case involving similar allegations, the plaintiff claimed that the shareholders of the judgment debtor caused it to cease doing business, stripping it of assets and leaving it a moribund shell to avoid payment to plaintiff, and that they continued to operate the business through other corporate entity defendants that the shareholders also dominated.
Lakah v. UBS AG
996 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) Cited 23 times
Holding that defendant's transfer of personal funds to the defendant corporation was evidence of domination and control
Section 500.1 - General requirements
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1 Cited 1 times
(a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation

Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp., Plaintiff, Wilmington Trust Company, Respondent,v.David Bonderman, et al., Appellants, Hellas Telecommunications, II, et al., Defendants. (And Three Other Actions.)

20 Cited authorities

Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."

Holding that "interrelatedness, standing alone, is not enough to subject a nonsignatory to arbitration"

Stating that “[t]hey may not assume and engage in the promotion of personal interests which are incompatible with the superior interests of their corporation.”

Holding that textual omissions in a "no-action clause" placed limits on the situations in which certain parties could and could not bring suit to enforce a contract

Finding that res judicata did not preclude plaintiff's claim where previous dismissal "was premised on lack of standing to bring a derivative claim on behalf of [nonparty corporation], and not on the relevant merits"

Dismissing veil-piercing claim where "plaintiff, a sophisticated party, admits that it knowingly entered into the CM Agreement with B2 Owner" and "cannot now claim that it was tricked into contracting with B2 owner only and thus should be allowed to assert claims against Forest City."

Noting that a plaintiff is "not required to plead the elements of alter ego liability with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b)"

Finding Plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent transfer against Defendants as a group, without specifying what conduct was attributable to each, failed to satisfy the pleading standard under Rule 8

Holding that defendant's transfer of personal funds to the defendant corporation was evidence of domination and control