Int'l Credit Brokerage Co. v. Agapov, 249 A.D.2d 77 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Int'l Credit Brokerage Co. v. Agapov, 249 A.D.2d 77 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …totally devoid of solid, nonconclusory allegations ✓
20 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parque Solar Don Jose S.A. de C.V. v. Enel S.P.A. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
There were no allegations of disregard of corporate formalities, commingling of funds, fraudulent transfers, or other factors to support piercing the corporate veil ( see International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov , 249 AD2d 77, 78 [1st Dept 1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kwan v. HFZ Capital Group, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, to the extent some of the causes of action in the Amended Complaint rely on allegations of veil piercing, the Amended Complaint has sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss because the Amended Complaint is not "totally devoid of solid, nonconclusory allegations" (International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov. 249 AD2d 77, 78 , 671 NYS2d 64, 65 [1st Dept 1998], quoting Sequa Corp. v Christopher, 176 AD2d 498 , 574 NYS2d 565 [1st Dept 1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kwan v. HFZ Capital Group, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, to the extent some of the causes of action in the Amended Complaint rely on allegations of veil piercing, the Amended Complaint has sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss because the Amended Complaint is not "totally devoid of solid, nonconclusory allegations" (International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov. 249 AD2d 77, 78 , 671 NYS2d 64, 65 [1st Dept 1998], quoting Sequa Corp. v Christopher, 176 AD2d 498 , 574 NYS2d 565 [1st Dept 1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 2406-12 Amsterdam Associates LLC v. Alianza LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Plaintiff was not required to plead the elements of alter ego liability with the particularity required by CPLR 3016 (b), but only to plead in a non-conclusory manner (see International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov, 249 AD2d 77, 78 [1st Dept 1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baby Phat Holding Co., LLC v. Kellwood Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The allegations that plaintiff paid the full purchase price directly to defendant and not PFLLC, and that before the instant transaction Intimateco directly paid defendant monies owed to PFLLC, sufficiently frame factual issues about whether defendant, as the parent company of PFLLC, commingled funds and disregarded corporate formalities (International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov, 249 AD2d 77, 78 [1st Dept 1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Moreover, when a complaint fails to plead that the parent company engaged in self-dealing, commingled funds, or lacked corporate formalities, a complaint seeking to pierce the corporate veil should be dismissed for failing to state a cause of action (see Hartej Corp. v Pepsico World Trading Co., 255 AD2d 233, 233 [1st Dept 1998]; cf. International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov, 249 AD2d 77, 78 [1st Dept 1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Moreover, when a complaint fails to plead that the parent company engaged in self-dealing, commingled funds, or lacked corporate formalities, a complaint seeking to pierce the corporate veil should be dismissed for failing to state a cause of action (see Hartej Corp. v Pepsico World Trading Co., 255 AD2d 233, 233 [1st Dept 1998]; cf. International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov, 249 AD2d 77, 78 [1st Dept 1998]).
cited Cited "see" Lippe v. Bairnco Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See, International Credit Brokerage Co. v. Agapov, 671 N.Y.S.2d 64, 65 (1st Dep’t 1998); Daniel J.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Davis v. M & M Developer, LLC (In re MBM Entertainment, LLC) (2×)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Jur.2d Business Relationships § 34; see also Int’l Credit Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Agapov, 249 A.D.2d 77, 78 , 671 N.Y.S.2d 64 (App.Div.lst Dept.1998) (denying a motion to dismiss a piercing the corporate veil claim where the plaintiff alleged lack of corporate formalities, commingling of funds, and self-dealing); Forum Ins.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Moses v. Martin (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Int’l Credit Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Agapov, 249 A.D.2d 77 , 671 N.Y.S.2d 64, 65 (1st Dep’t 1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
International Credit Brokerage Co., Inc.
v.
Andre Agapov
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 9, 1998.
249 A.D.2d 77
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about September 1, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), or, in the alternative, to stay the action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Initially, we agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff is authorized to do business in New York and, thus, is not barred from maintaining this action by Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) (compare, Dixie Dinettes v Schaller’s Furniture, 71 Misc 2d 102; Tri-Terminal Corp. v CITC Indus., 78 AD2d 609). Accordingly, that branch of defendant’s motion seeking to stay the action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) was properly denied.

As to the branch of defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, it too was properly denied. Plaintiff pleads a viable cause of action for tortious interference with contract based on its assertion that defendant, a director in plaintiff corporation, induced a key employee to terminate his relationship with plaintiff by committing the independent tortious act of creating and displaying forged documents to the employee in an attempt to persuade him prematurely to terminate his employment agreement with[*78] plaintiff, which agreement had been signed by and was, therefore, known to defendant (see, e.g., Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90; compare, Feigen v Advance Capital Mgt. Corp., 150 AD2d 281, 283, lv denied and dismissed 74 NY2d 874). Since the independent tortious act complained of was beyond the scope of defendant’s authority as a director, plaintiff also states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Finally, we agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff’s pleading seeking to pierce the corporate veil of OBLI USA, Inc., is sufficient to survive defendant’s motion to dismiss. The amended complaint, as supplemented by affidavits, alleges lack of corporate formalities, commingling of funds, and self-dealing. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “it cannot be said that the complaint ‘is totally devoid of solid, nonconclusory allegations’ ” regarding defendant’s use of OBLI USA, Inc. as his corporate alter-ego (Sequa Corp. v Christopher, 176 AD2d 498, quoting Perez v One Clark St. Hous. Corp., 108 AD2d 144, 145; see also, 29/35 Realty Assocs. v 35th St. N. Y. Yarn Ctr., 181 AD2d 540, 541). Plaintiff may, therefore, continue his properly pleaded breach of contract claims against defendant individually. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.