From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. Zaks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 2008
48 A.D.3d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2731.

February 7, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered September 18, 2006, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Steven R. Goldberg, New York, for appellant.

Bryan Cave LLP, New York (Daniel P. Waxman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.


In seeking to pierce the corporate veil, plaintiff failed to offer evidence that defendant owners exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction under attack, and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against plaintiff, resulting in injury ( Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141). Defendants successfully refuted the claim that they transferred assets to themselves or family members or to a new corporation to plaintiff's detriment. There was no proof of insolvency or any improper conveyances ( see Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 271-276). As to the 2001 corporate tax return, the record indicates the corporation was viable at that time, and current in its obligation to pay interest on the debt in 2001 and 2002.


Summaries of

Fisher v. Zaks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 2008
48 A.D.3d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Fisher v. Zaks

Case Details

Full title:MARK B. FISHER, Appellant, v. SAM ZAKS et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 7, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1075
852 N.Y.S.2d 69

Citing Cases

Weinheimer v. Lower Brule Cmty. Dev. Enter., LLC

"Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred by a person who is or will be thereby rendered insolvent…

Sung Chang Interfashion Co. v. Stone Mountain Accessories, Inc.

If SungChang seeks to pierce the corporate veil, "[t]he factors evincing the need to pierce the corporate…