| Love v Rebecca Dev., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09364 [56 AD3d 733] |
| November 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Charles Love, Respondent, v Rebecca Development, Inc.,et al., Defendants, and Zohar Zauber et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Polizzotto & Polizzotto, LLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Bonnie Bernstein of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property, the defendants ZoharZauber and David Ettedgui appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated September 20, 2007, as denied their motionpursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and 3016 (b) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted againstthem.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that '(1) the owners exercisedcomplete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that suchdomination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in theplaintiff's injury' " (Millennium Constr., LLC v Loupolover, 44 AD3d 1016, 1016 [2007],quoting Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141[1993]; see Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, 202 AD2d 552, 552 [1994]). The partyseeking to pierce the corporate veil must further establish that the controlling corporation abusedthe privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice againstthat party such that a court in equity will intervene (see Matter of Morris v New York StateDept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d at 142; Weinstein v Willow Lake Corp., 262AD2d 634, 635 [1999]; Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, 202 AD2d at 552). "The conceptis equitable in nature, and the decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instancewill depend on the facts and circumstances" (Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, 202 AD2dat 553; see [*2]Weinstein v Willow Lake Corp., 262AD2d at 635).
Affording the complaint a liberal construction, accepting as true all facts alleged therein, andaccording the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC, 54 AD3d 703 [2008];Asgahar v Tringali Realty, Inc., 18 AD3d 408 [2005]), the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded acause of action to recover against the appellants for the alleged wrongs committed by thecorporate defendants pursuant to a " '[p]iercing [of] the corporate veil' " theory (VentrescaRealty Corp. v Houlihan, 28 AD3d 537, 538 [2006], quoting Weinstein v Willow LakeCorp., 262 AD2d at 635). Contrary to the appellants' contention, the plaintiff sufficientlyalleged that they exercised complete domination and control over the assetless corporation inorder to commit a wrong against the plaintiff (see Ventresca Realty Corp. v Houlihan, 28AD3d 537 [2006]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickersonand Belen, JJ., concur.