Opinion
June 3, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Assuming the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint, as this court must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (see, Sanders v Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391), we find that it adequately states a cause of action against the defendant Frank B. Hall Co., Inc. (hereinafter Hall), to pierce its corporate veil (see, Pebble Cove Homeowners' Assn. v Fidelity N Y, 153 A.D.2d 843, 843-844; Marino v Dwyer-Berry Constr. Corp., 146 A.D.2d 750; Key Intl. Mfg. v Morse/Diesel, Inc., 142 A.D.2d 448, 453-454). The allegations contained in the complaint are not merely conclusory. Rather, they refer to certain activities by Hall which, if true, might lead to a piercing of its corporate veil. Accordingly, it would be premature to dismiss the complaint as against Hall at this early stage of the litigation.
We further find that the court providently exercised its discretion when it opened up the plaintiff's default on a motion to dismiss the first cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Guillen v 652 Broadway Corp., 168 A.D.2d 486; P K Marble v Pearce, 168 A.D.2d 439).
We have considered the defendants' remaining contention and find it to be without merit (cf., Kensington Publ. Corp. v Kable News Co., 100 A.D.2d 802). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.