5 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. New York State Department of Taxation & Financegreen2 sentences2013It is well established that “[t]he doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is typically employed by a third party seeking to go behind the corporate existence in order to circumvent the limited liability of the owners and to hold them liable for some underlying corporate obligation” (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 140-141 [1993]). “ ‘[T]he courts are loathe to disregard the corporate form for the benefit of those who have chosen that form to conduct business’ ” (Bac cash v Sayegh, 53 AD3d 636, 639 [2008]), and we conclude that the court properly refuse 2013It is well established that “[t]he doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is typically employed by a third party seeking to go behind the corporate existence in order to circumvent the limited liability of the owners and to hold them liable for some underlying corporate obligation” (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 140-141 [1993]). “ ‘[T]he courts are loathe to disregard the corporate form for the benefit of those who have chosen that form to conduct business’ ” (Bac cash v Sayegh, 53 AD3d 636, 639 [2008]), and we conclude that the court properly refuse | 2 | 4 |
Baccash v. Sayeghgreen2 sentences2013It is well established that “[t]he doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is typically employed by a third party seeking to go behind the corporate existence in order to circumvent the limited liability of the owners and to hold them liable for some underlying corporate obligation” (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 140-141 [1993]). “ ‘[T]he courts are loathe to disregard the corporate form for the benefit of those who have chosen that form to conduct business’ ” (Bac cash v Sayegh, 53 AD3d 636, 639 [2008]), and we conclude that the court properly refuse 2013It is well established that “[t]he doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is typically employed by a third party seeking to go behind the corporate existence in order to circumvent the limited liability of the owners and to hold them liable for some underlying corporate obligation” (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 140-141 [1993]). “ ‘[T]he courts are loathe to disregard the corporate form for the benefit of those who have chosen that form to conduct business’ ” (Bac cash v Sayegh, 53 AD3d 636, 639 [2008]), and we conclude that the court properly refuse | 2 | 3 |
Victor Temporary Services v. Slatterygreen2 sentences2013Nevertheless, viewing the submissions of the parties in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must (see Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1117 [1984]), we conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether he has sustained damages for loss of rent (cf. Malachowski, 87 AD3d at 1323 ). 2013Nevertheless, viewing the submissions of the parties in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must (see Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1117 [1984]), we conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether he has sustained damages for loss of rent (cf. Malachowski, 87 AD3d at 1323 ). | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MALACHOWSKI, RONALD A. v. DALY, MARTIN J.
green
2 sentences2013Nevertheless, viewing the submissions of the parties in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must (see Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1117 [1984]), we conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether he has sustained damages for loss of rent (cf. Malachowski, 87 AD3d at 1323 ). 2013Nevertheless, viewing the submissions of the parties in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must (see Victor Temporary Servs. v Slattery, 105 AD2d 1115, 1117 [1984]), we conclude that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether he has sustained damages for loss of rent (cf. Malachowski, 87 AD3d at 1323 ). | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.
green
1 sentence1993Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152 ; Port Chester Elec. | 1 | 1993–1993 |