Matter of Guptill Holding Corp. v. State, 292 N.E.2d 782 (NY 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Guptill Holding Corp. v. State, 292 N.E.2d 782 (NY 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: American Federated Title Corp. v. GFI Management Services, Inc. (nysd, 2015-08-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." American Federated Title Corp. v. GFI Management Services, Inc. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Morris, 82 N.Y.2d at 141-42 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 807 , 623 N.E.2d 1157 (explaining that “domination, standing alone, is not enough; some showing of a wrongful or unjust act toward plaintiff is required” to pierce the corporate veil); see also Guptill Holding Corp. v. State, 33 A.D.2d 362, 365 , 307 N.Y.S.2d 970 (3d Dep’t 1970), aff'd, 31 N.Y.2d 897 , 340 N.Y.S.2d 638 , 292 N.E.2d 782 (N.Y.1972) (declining to pierce the corporate veil because "[w]hile [defendant] clearly had complete dominion and control over the [corporation], this is not the type of case where this control was used to com…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." TNS Holdings, Inc. v. MKI Securities Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
Judicial disregard of the corporate form is, in fact, permitted only in those exceptional circumstances where its proponent has carried the very heavy burden of demonstrating such complete domination of one corporation by another that there is absolutely no basis for treating the corporations as distinct entities and, moreover, that to do so would result in serious inequity (Ma tter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 ; see also, Matter of Guptill Holding Corp. v State of New York, 33 AD2d 362, 364-365 , affd 31 NY2d 897 ; Lowendahl v Baltimore & Ohio R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Guptill Holding Corporation, Respondent,
v.
State of New York, Appellant, and United States of America, Intervenor-Appellant.
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 6, 1972.
292 N.E.2d 782
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Henderson G. Riggs and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for appellant.

James A. Sullivan, Jr., United States Attorney (Karl Schmeidler, Scott P. Crampton, Meyer Rothwacks and Crombie J. D. Garrett of counsel), for intervenor-appellant.

Frank T. Mahady for respondent.

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.

Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at the Appellate Division.