corporation and abused privilege in New York

2026Inc., 16 NY3d 775, 776 [2011].) It must "adequately allege the existence of a corporate obligation and that defendant exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice.

2024"In order for a plaintiff to state a viable claim against a shareholder of a corporation in his or her individual capacity for actions purportedly taken on behalf of the corporation, plaintiff must allege facts that, if proved, indicate that the shareholder exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice" ( East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc. , 16 NY3d 775, 776 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation &

2021Recovery Corp. , 31 NY3d 30, 47 [2018]), plaintiffs sufficiently "allege[d] the existence of a corporate obligation and that [the diocesan defendants] exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice" ( id. at 48 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Talmadge v Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany , 167 AD3d 1361 , 1362 [2018]; Barnes v Dungan , 261 AD2d 797, 799 [*5][1999]).

2021Recovery Corp. , 31 NY3d 30, 47 [2018]), plaintiffs sufficiently "allege[d] the existence of a corporate obligation and that [the diocesan defendants] exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice" ( id. at 48 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Talmadge v Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany , 167 AD3d 1361 , 1362 [2018]; Barnes v Dungan , 261 AD2d 797, 799 [*5][1999]).

2026(Id., quoting Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. ofTaxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 140 [1993] [internal quotations omitted].) At this juncture, the Court finds that plaintiff has established the basic elements of a veil piercing claim, as she has alleged that Conopco and Unilever: (1) have integrated manufacturing, sales, and distribution systems with The Laundress; (2) share a number of officers, directors and employees 161675/2023 BARON, ROBERTA vs.

2024"In order for a plaintiff to state a viable claim against a shareholder of a corporation in his or her individual capacity for actions purportedly taken on behalf of the corporation, plaintiff must allege facts that, if proved, indicate that the shareholder exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice" ( East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc. , 16 NY3d 775, 776 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation &

2024"While complete domination of the corporation is the key to piercing the corporate veil, especially when the owners use the corporation as a mere device to further their personal rather than the corporate business, such domination, standing alone, is not enough; some showing of a wrongful or unjust act toward plaintiff is required" ( Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 82 NY2d at 141-142 [citation omitted]; see Ruland v Leibowitz , 209 AD3d at 1052 ).

2022Indeed, although "[t]he mere claim that the [entity] was completely dominated by the owners, or conclusory assertions that the corporation acted as their 'alter ego,' without more, will not suffice to support the equitable relief of piercing the corporate veil" ( Matter of Goldman v Chapman , 44 AD3d 938, 939 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 702 [2008]; see Sky-Track Tech.

2022Here, contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff raised sufficient allegations that the individual defendants "exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice" ( East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc ., 16 NY3d 775, 776 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Conason v Megan Holding, LLC , 25 NY3d 1, 18 [2015], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1193 [2015]).

2022Here, contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff raised sufficient allegations that the individual defendants "exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice" ( East Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc ., 16 NY3d 775, 776 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Conason v Megan Holding, LLC , 25 NY3d 1, 18 [2015], rearg denied 25 NY3d 1193 [2015]).

2021Recovery Corp. , 31 NY3d 30, 47 [2018]), plaintiffs sufficiently "allege[d] the existence of a corporate obligation and that [the diocesan defendants] exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice" ( id. at 48 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Talmadge v Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany , 167 AD3d 1361 , 1362 [2018]; Barnes v Dungan , 261 AD2d 797, 799 [*5][1999]).