Chalk & Vermillion, LLC v. Thomas F. Mcknight, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chalk & Vermillion, LLC v. Thomas F. Mcknight, LLC

303 A.D.2d 225, 755 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 225 (Chalk & Vermillion, LLC v. Thomas F. Mcknight, LLC) 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

Chalk & Vermillion, LLC v. Thomas F. Mcknight, LLC, 303 A.D.2d 225, 755 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about October 3, 2002 and October 16, 2002, respectively, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the complaint as against defendant Renate McKnight, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed insofar as it sought to pierce the corporate veil of the McKnight entities so as to hold defendant Renate McKnight personally liable, since the record presents no triable issue as to whether “the corporation was dominated as to the transaction attacked” or as to whether “such domination was the instrument of fraud or otherwise resulted in wrongful or inequitable consequences” (TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339 [1998]; and see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 [226]*226NY2d 135 [1993]). Plaintiffs’ mere hope that further discovery would support their claims is not a sufficient reason to postpone summary judgment (see Maysek & Moran v S.G. Warburg & Co., 284 AD2d 203 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about October 3, 2002 and October 16, 2002, respectively, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the complaint as against defendant Renate McKnight, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed insofar as it sought to pierce the corporate veil of the McKnight entities so as to hold defendant Renate McKnight personally liable, since the record presents no triable issue as to whether “the corporation was dominated as to the transaction attacked” or as to whether “such domination was the instrument of fraud or otherwise resulted in wrongful or inequitable consequences” (TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339 [1998]; and see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 [226]*226NY2d 135 [1993]). Plaintiffs’ mere hope that further discovery would support their claims is not a sufficient reason to postpone summary judgment (see Maysek & Moran v S.G. Warburg & Co., 284 AD2d 203 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 225, 755 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chalk-vermillion-llc-v-thomas-f-mcknight-llc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack