James v. Loran Realty V Corp.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of DePetris v. Traina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Sutton 58 Assocs. LLC v. Pilevsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Town-Line Car Wash, Inc. v. Don's Kleen Mach. Kar Wash, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, L.L.C. v. Barral (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Roka, LLC v. Hing Lam (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Franklin v. Daily Holdings, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Plaintiffs, as the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil, had the burden to show that the individual defendants “abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against” them (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 142 [1993]). Plaintiffs did not meet this burden, inasmuch as they failed to produce evidence that the individual defendants took steps to render the corporate defendant insolvent in order to avoid plaintiffs’ claim for damages or otherwise defraud plaintiffs.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.