alter ego claim in New York

2021The motion court correctly determined that, under applicable Delaware law, plaintiff failed to state an alter ego claim, because it did not allege facts that would support an inference that Holdco was created as a sham entity designed to defraud investors and creditors ( see Crosse v BCBSD, Inc. , 836 A2d 492, 497 [Del 2003]).

2021The motion court correctly determined that, under applicable Delaware law, plaintiff failed to state an alter ego claim, because it did not allege facts that would support an inference that Holdco was created as a sham entity designed to defraud investors and creditors ( see Crosse v BCBSD, Inc. , 836 A2d 492, 497 [Del 2003]).

2024However, plaintiff's cited authority in support of disregarding the corporate form in favor of a collective alter ego liability theory is inapposite because those courts held that each defendant was the alter ego of another ( see Perez v Masonry Servs., Inc. , 189 AD3d 703, 704 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 903 [2021] [specifically finding that the defendants treated two corporate entities "as a single entity," and thus "abused the privilege of doing business [*2]in the corporate form"]; Wm.

2024Alter-Ego/Piercing the Corporate Veil A party seeking to compel arbitration pursuant to the alter ego exception bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that the corporation was dominated and such domination was the instrument of fraud or led to malfeasance. ( See Matter of Rural Media Group, Inc. v Yraola, 137 AD3d 489, 490-491 [1st Dept 2016] [holding that "Respondent bears a heavy burden with respect to each of these theories, and [i]nterrelatedness, standing alone, is not enough to subject a nonsignatory to arbitration"] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Here, the Venari Defenda

2024The alter ego claim was properly dismissed as against individual defendants Giancarlo Aliberti and Matthias Calice, as there is no evidence that they were "actually doing business in their individual capacities, shuttling their personal funds in and out of the corporations without regard to formality and to suit their immediate convenience" ( Walkovszky v Carlton , 18 NY2d 414, 420 [1966] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Art Capital Bermuda Ltd. v Bank of N.T.

2013LLC v Highland Capital Mgt., L.P., 93 AD3d 489, 490 [Mar. 13, 2012].) The Court reasoned that its July 2011 decision “warrants dismissal of a portion of plaintiffs claims in this action due to res judicata since defendants are in privity with the defendant [Highland Capital] in the other action.” (Id.) The Court further noted that the complaint seeks to hold Highland Financial liable as the alter ego of defendant SOHC, and held that the alter ego claim was sufficiently stated based on the allegations, among others, that “SOHC’s sole board member is on Highland Financial’s board, Highland Finan

2013(Matter of Morris v New York State Dept, of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993].) UBS also has no equitable interest in the specific assets it seeks to restrain.

2011Corp. v CPL Furs N.Y., Inc., 67 AD3d 511, 512 [2009]); defendants do not attempt to make any factual allegations as to the remaining alter ego factors or plaintiffs remaining causes of action.

1987Again, the amended complaint contains only a legal conclusion with no factual allegations supporting the alter ego claim, which is "so purely conclusory as to be meaningless” (East Asiatic Co. v Corash, 34 AD2d 432, 436 [1st Dept 1970]).