MLM v. Karamouzis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MLM v. Karamouzis

2 A.D.3d 161, 767 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12934

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 161 (MLM v. Karamouzis) 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

MLM v. Karamouzis, 2 A.D.3d 161, 767 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 15, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An owner/shareholder is not individually hable for the torts of a corporation unless it is established that he exercised complete dominion over the corporation alleged to have committed the wrong (Brito v DILP Corp., 282 AD2d 320 [2001]). We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendant, a principal of the restaurant corporation, engaged in allegedly tortious conduct, [162]*162for which he should be held individually responsible. Such conduct amounts, at most, to nonfeasance, for which defendant is not liable (Michaels v Lispenard Holding Corp., 11 AD2d 12, 14 [I960]). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the requisite elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 15, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An owner/shareholder is not individually hable for the torts of a corporation unless it is established that he exercised complete dominion over the corporation alleged to have committed the wrong (Brito v DILP Corp., 282 AD2d 320 [2001]). We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendant, a principal of the restaurant corporation, engaged in allegedly tortious conduct, [162]*162for which he should be held individually responsible. Such conduct amounts, at most, to nonfeasance, for which defendant is not liable (Michaels v Lispenard Holding Corp., 11 AD2d 12, 14 [I960]). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the requisite elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 161, 767 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mlm-v-karamouzis-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack