James v Loran Realty V Corp.

James v Loran Realty V Corp. 2011 NY Slip Op 05409 Decided on June 23, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 23, 2011
Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
4739 16954/02

[*1]Kayla James, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

Loran Realty Corp., Defendant, Frank Palazzolo, et al., Defendants-Respondents.



 
Gregory J. Cannata & Associates, New York (Gregory J.
Cannata of counsel), for appellants.
Hass & Gottlieb, Scarsdale (Lawrence M. Gottlieb of counsel),
for Frank Palazzolo, respondent.
Daniel G. Heyman, New York, for Carmine Donadio,
respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 30, 2009, which, after a nonjury trial, in this action for personal injuries sustained by infant plaintiff as a result of exposure to lead-based paint in a building owned by defendant Loran Realty V Corp. (Loran V), dismissed plaintiffs' second cause of action seeking to pierce the corporate veil of Loran V and hold the individual defendants personally liable for plaintiffs' injuries, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"[P]iercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury" (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]). Here, while plaintiffs may have demonstrated that defendant Palazzolo exercised complete domination and control over Loran V, they have failed to show that Palazzolo's actions were for the purpose of leaving the corporation judgment proof or that his actions amounted to a wrong against them (see Fantazia Intl. Corp. v CPL Furs N.Y., Inc., 67 AD3d 511 [2009]). Although Loran V is now a judgment-proof shell, it was not such at the time the individual defendants turned over control of it, and plaintiffs have offered no evidence showing that Palazzolo, or any other defendant, had any financial interest in, or continued to be involved in the management or control of, Loran V at [*2]the time it became judgment proof (id.).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 23, 2011

CLERK