Aetna Electrical Distributing Co. v. Homestead Electric, Ltd.

279 A.D.2d 541, 719 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1292
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 541 (Aetna Electrical Distributing Co. v. Homestead Electric, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Aetna Electrical Distributing Co. v. Homestead Electric, Ltd., 279 A.D.2d 541, 719 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated September 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Robert F. Lutz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the corporate veil of Homestead Electric, Ltd., should be pierced and that its sole shareholder, Robert F. Lutz, should be held liable for its debts. However, to pierce the corporate veil, the plaintiff must show that the owner exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked, and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiff’s injury (see, Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135; Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, 202 AD2d 552).

Here, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing that Lutz used his alleged domination of Homestead Electric, Ltd., to commit a fraud or wrong against it. Thus, Lutz was [542]*542entitled to summary judgment (see, TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335; Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Town-Line Car Wash, Inc. v. Don's Kleen Mach. Kar Wash, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 1443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Williams v. Lovell Safety Management Co.
71 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lofstad v. S & R Fisheries, Inc.
45 A.D.3d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Stuart Realty Co. v. Rye Country Store, Inc.
296 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D.2d 541, 719 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-electrical-distributing-co-v-homestead-electric-ltd-nyappdiv-2001.