In re the Estate of Moak
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtEgan Jr., J.
*1042Initially, we have no quarrel with Surrogate’s Court’s decision to pierce the corporate veil and hold Drake personally liable for the corporate debts incurred by RHD and/or Woodfield. Contrary to respondents’ assertion, “an attempt ... to pierce the corporate veil does not constitute a cause of action independent of that against the corporation; rather it is an assertion of facts and circumstances which will persuade the court to impose the corporate obligation on its owners” (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]; see Sugar Foods De Mexico v…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Morris v. New York State Department of Taxation & FinanceNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- East Hampton Union Free School District v. Sandpebble Builders, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
- In re the Estate of WitbeckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Societe Generale Alsacienne De Banque, Zurich v. Flemingdon Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Maki v. Bassett HealthcareAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Torrance Construction, Inc. v. JaquesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Lynch v. CarlozziAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- In Re the Estate of MoakAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- In re the Estate of PolsinelliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- In re the Estate of PolsinelliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.