Zinger v Service Ctr. of N.Y., Inc.

[*1] Zinger v Service Ctr. of N.Y., Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 51062(U) [23 Misc 3d 142(A)] Decided on May 29, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 29, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570245/08.

Gil Zinger, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Service Center of New York, Inc. d/b/a Bubu Carpet, and Yaniv Dahari, individually and doing business as Bubu Carpet, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 17, 2007, which granted the motion of defendant Yaniv Dahari for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him.

Per Curiam.

Order (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 17, 2007, modified to vacate the merits determination on the motion and to deem the dismissal of plaintiff's claim of "alter ego" liability against defendant Dahari to be without prejudice; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sued the corporate defendant for breach of contract and related claims, seeking recovery of commissions allegedly due and owing. Plaintiff also sought to impose liability upon the principal of the corporate defendant (individual defendant Dahari), alleging that Dahari misused the corporate form to avoid liability. Civil Court granted partial summary judgment and dismissed the complaint as against Dahari on the ground that plaintiff had failed to show a basis for piercing the corporate veil.

Since piercing the corporate veil is a form of equitable relief which Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain (see 19 W. 45th St. Realty Co. v Darom Elec. Corp., 233 AD2d 184 [1996]), we vacate Civil Court's merits determination on this issue and deem the dismissal to be without prejudice to plaintiff's remedies in a proper forum. We note further that the determination as to whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance "is particularly unsuited for resolution on summary judgment" (Forum Ins. Co. v Texarkoma Transp. Co., 229 AD2d 341, 342 [1996]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 29, 2009