Hart v. Jassem
| Citation | 43 A.D.3d 997,843 N.Y.S.2d 121,2007 NY Slip Op 06834 |
| Decision Date | 18 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-09077. |
| Parties | WILLIAM HART, Doing Business as HART LOBSTER, CO., Appellant, v. STANLEY JASSEM et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the first, second, and sixth causes of action insofar as asserted against the defendants Stanley Jassem and Ellen Jassem, doing business as Lumar Lobster and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of defendants' motion and (2) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the fifth cause of action and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion with leave to the plaintiff to replead the allegations in a second amended complaint, if the plaintiff be so advised; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover payment for lobsters sold and delivered between August 12, 2005 and October 14, 2005. The plaintiff claimed an outstanding balance due of $24,871.39.
In the order under review, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the individual defendants Stanley Jassem and Ellen Jassem, doing business as Lumar Lobster (hereinafter the Jassems). Since the fifth cause of action only sought to pierce the corporate veil of the defendant Kaynard Lobster Corp. (hereinafter Kaynard) in order to make the Jassems personally liable, and since New York "does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil" (Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 15 AD3d 528, 529 [2005]), the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the fifth cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson & Pope Eng'rs & Land Surveyors, PLLC v. Pinewood Dev. Corp.
...from that against the corporation ( Rosen v. Kessler, 51 AD3d 761, 856 N.Y.S.2d 861 [2d Dept 2008] ; Hart v. Jassem, 43 AD3d 997, 843 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 2007] ; Fiber Consultants, Inc. v. Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 15 AD3d 528, 792 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2d Dept 2005] ). Rather, a party may b......
-
Wasif v. Khan
...complaint should have been denied ( see Rose v. Aziz, 60 A.D.3d at 926, 874 N.Y.S.2d 816; Harrison v. Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 43 A.D.3d at 997, 843 N.Y.S.2d...
-
In re Cabrini Med. Ctr.
...as an alter ego. Id. New York does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil. Hart v. Jassem, 43 A.D.3d 997, 998, 843 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122-23 (2d Dep't. 2007). The remedy of piercing the corporate veil is "equitable in nature" and the dominated corporation itself mu......
-
Intelligent Prod. Solutions, Inc. v. Morstan Gen. Agency, Inc.
...2014 WL 5151404 [2d Dept 2014] ; Rosen v. Kessler, 51 AD3d 761, 761, 856 N.Y.S.2d 861 [2d Dept 2008] ; Hart v. Jassem, 43 AD3d 997, 998, 843 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 2007] ). Instead, corporate veil piercing is an equitable doctrine which allows a corporation's separate legal existence to be d......