Paul J. Cowley & Associates, Inc. v. Comtax, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paul J. Cowley & Associates, Inc. v. Comtax, Inc.

100 A.D.2d 744, 473 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17752

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 744 (Paul J. Cowley & Associates, Inc. v. Comtax, Inc.) 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

Paul J. Cowley & Associates, Inc. v. Comtax, Inc., 100 A.D.2d 744, 473 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The complaint alleges that defendant Barbetta promised that he would be personally liable for the debts of the corporation. This promise, if found to be false when made, could justify piercing the corporate veil (Lowendahl v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 247 App Div 144, affd 272 NY 360). Such conduct could also support a cause of action for deceit (Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403; Ochs v Woods, 221 NY 335, 338). The lack of any writing by which Barbetta promised to be liable for the debts of another, although barring a contract action (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd a, par 2) is not a bar to maintenance of an action founded in tort (Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, supra, p 408). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The complaint alleges that defendant Barbetta promised that he would be personally liable for the debts of the corporation. This promise, if found to be false when made, could justify piercing the corporate veil (Lowendahl v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 247 App Div 144, affd 272 NY 360). Such conduct could also support a cause of action for deceit (Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403; Ochs v Woods, 221 NY 335, 338). The lack of any writing by which Barbetta promised to be liable for the debts of another, although barring a contract action (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd a, par 2) is not a bar to maintenance of an action founded in tort (Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, supra, p 408). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 744, 473 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-j-cowley-associates-inc-v-comtax-inc-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack