Pere v. 1470-1488 U & R Inc.

268 A.D.2d 436, 702 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 219
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 10, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 436 (Pere v. 1470-1488 U & R 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
Pere v. 1470-1488 U & R Inc., 268 A.D.2d 436, 702 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law article 11 for judicial dissolution of 1470-1488 U & R Inc., that corporation appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated February 23, 1998, which, inter alla, directed it to pay 20% of certain funds held in escrow in partial satisfaction of a judgment of the same court, dated February 20, 1997, and (2) an order of the same court dated August 5, 1998, which denied its motion to vacate (a) an order of the same court dated June 11, 1996, which, upon its default, granted a receiver’s motion to settle an account and disperse funds, and (b) a judgment of the same court dated September 27, 1996, which, after a hearing, is in [437]*437favor of Sol Mermelstein and against it for an attorney’s fee in the amount of $19,100.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

There was sufficient evidence to justify the piercing of the corporate veil to the extent granted here, directing the appellant corporation to pay the debt of one of its principals, given the complete disregard of corporate formalities and the personal use of corporate funds by the principal (see, Austin Powder Co. v McCullough, 216 AD2d 825, 826).

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate its defaults since it failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the defaults and a meritorious defense (see, Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512; Gerry's Foods v Blue Ridge Farms, 243 AD2d 679; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568).

The corporation’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rotella v. Derner
283 A.D.2d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 436, 702 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pere-v-1470-1488-u-r-inc-nyappdiv-2000.