James v. Loran Realty V Corp., 980 N.E.2d 532 (NY 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
James v. Loran Realty V Corp., 980 N.E.2d 532 (NY 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Sutton 58 Assocs. LLC v. Pilevsky (nyappdiv, 2020-12-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sutton 58 Assocs. LLC v. Pilevsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Thus, it has not satisfied its burden under Morris ( see also James v Loran Realty V Corp ., 20 NY3d 918, 919 [2012] ["Plaintiffs . . . 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 (quoting Morris at 142).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kayla James, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Atara James
v.
Loran Realty V Corp., and Frank Palazzolo
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 29, 2012.
980 N.E.2d 532
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C., New York City (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for appellants., Hass & Gottlieb, Scarsdale (Lawrence M. Gottlieb of counsel), for Frank Palazzolo, respondent.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

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.