Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

East Hampton Union Free School District v. Sandpebble Builders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 28, 2009Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dillon, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

We disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the complaint fails to state a cause of action against the defendant Victor Canseco for the alleged wrong committed by the defendant Sandpebble Builders, Inc., under a “piercing the corporate veil theory” as to the 2006 construction services contract. For reasons set forth below, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss as to that cause of action, but disagree with the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the defendants’…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Leon v. MartinezNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Guggenheimer v. GinzburgNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. Morris v. New York State Department of Taxation & FinanceNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. Foley v. D'AgostinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  5. Walkovszky v. CarltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1966

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API