Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Ramos

80 A.D.3d 447, 915 N.Y.S.2d 241

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 447 (Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Ramos) 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

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Ramos, 80 A.D.3d 447, 915 N.Y.S.2d 241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 14, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment holding defendants liable for the judgment entered against the judgment debtor and defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A number of factors suggest that defendant corporation is the alter ego of the judgment debtor, including the use of essentially the same name, the fact that the judgment debtor was not formally dissolved, and the overlap of employees, ownership, physical plant and equipment. In addition, the individual defendants collectively owned two-thirds of the judgment debtor. However, although plaintiff argues that the judgment debtor was “stripped of its assets,” one of the individual defendants testified that equipment of the judgment debtor, including pumps, trucks and other vehicles, was purchased at fair market value. Moreover, the other principal of the judgment debtor has no ownership in defendant corporation. He testified that he made the decision to cease the judgment debtor’s operations and that he so decided because the corporation was losing money and his health had declined. Furthermore, the individual defendants, the principals of defendant corporation, invested substantial sums in defendant corporation. On this record, whether the individual defendants sufficiently dominated the judgment debtor cannot be determined as a matter of law (see Wm. Passalacqua Bldrs., Inc. v Resnick Devs. S., Inc., 933 F2d 131, 138-139 [1991]). Similarly, and particularly because it is not clear that the individual defendants knew of the liability to [448]*448plaintiff, the record does not demonstrate conclusively the requisite wrongful or unjust act toward plaintiff (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 142 [1993]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 14, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment holding defendants liable for the judgment entered against the judgment debtor and defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A number of factors suggest that defendant corporation is the alter ego of the judgment debtor, including the use of essentially the same name, the fact that the judgment debtor was not formally dissolved, and the overlap of employees, ownership, physical plant and equipment. In addition, the individual defendants collectively owned two-thirds of the judgment debtor. However, although plaintiff argues that the judgment debtor was “stripped of its assets,” one of the individual defendants testified that equipment of the judgment debtor, including pumps, trucks and other vehicles, was purchased at fair market value. Moreover, the other principal of the judgment debtor has no ownership in defendant corporation. He testified that he made the decision to cease the judgment debtor’s operations and that he so decided because the corporation was losing money and his health had declined. Furthermore, the individual defendants, the principals of defendant corporation, invested substantial sums in defendant corporation. On this record, whether the individual defendants sufficiently dominated the judgment debtor cannot be determined as a matter of law (see Wm. Passalacqua Bldrs., Inc. v Resnick Devs. S., Inc., 933 F2d 131, 138-139 [1991]). Similarly, and particularly because it is not clear that the individual defendants knew of the liability to [448]*448plaintiff, the record does not demonstrate conclusively the requisite wrongful or unjust act toward plaintiff (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 142 [1993]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 447, 915 N.Y.S.2d 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioners-of-the-state-insurance-fund-v-ramos-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack