Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Aetna Electrical Distributing Co. v. Homestead Electric, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 22, 2001

279 A.D.2d 541; 719 N.Y.S.2d 668; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1292

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Devon Mobile Communications Liquidating Trust v. Adelphia Communications Corp. (In re Adelphia Communications Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2005)
Town-Line Car Wash, Inc. v. Don's Kleen Mach. Kar Wash, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Williams v. Lovell Safety Management Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Lofstad v. S & R Fisheries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Stuart Realty Co. v. Rye Country Store, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated September 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Robert F. Lutz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the corporate veil of Homestead Electric, Ltd., should be pierced and that its sole shareholder, Robert F. Lutz, should be held liable for its debts. However, to pierce the corporate veil, the plaintiff must show that the owner exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked, and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiff’s injury (see, Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135; Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, 202 AD2d 552).

Here, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing that Lutz used his alleged domination of Homestead Electric, Ltd., to commit a fraud or wrong against it. Thus, Lutz was *542entitled to summary judgment (see, TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335; Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.