| Lawlor v Hoffman |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01088 [59 AD3d 499] |
| February 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Todd Lawlor, Appellant, v Jonathan Hoffman et al.,Defendants, and Mitchell Banchik et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven H. Rosenfeld andGregg Sharaga of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from so muchof an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated December 12, 2007, asgranted the motion of the defendants Mitchell Banchik and Michael Asch for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) from an order of the samecourt dated June 2, 2008, which denied his motion for leave to renew.
Ordered that the order dated December 12, 2007 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and itis further,
Ordered that the order dated June 2, 2008 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The plaintiff alleges that he was physically assaulted by a patron while in a bar. Thedefendants Mitchell Banchik and Michael Asch (hereinafter the defendants) are shareholders andofficers of the corporation that owns the bar. The defendants moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the basis that they cannot be heldpersonally liable as officers and shareholders of the corporation.
A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that "(1) the owners exercised[*2]complete domination of the corporation in respect to thetransaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong againstthe plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury" (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. ofTaxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135,141 [1993]). It must also be established that the defendantsabused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injusticeagainst the plaintiff such that a court of equity will intervene (see Millennium Constr., LLC v Loupolover, 44 AD3d 1016[2007]).
Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The defendants met their burden ofestablishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff, in opposition, failed toraise a triable issue of fact (seeMillennium Constr., LLC v Loupolover, 44 AD3d 1016 [2007]). The defendantsdemonstrated that they were acting only as officers and stockholders in performing corporatebusiness. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that the defendants were notacting within their corporate capacity or that they exercised complete "domination" or controlover the corporate affairs that required further inquiry (see Maggio v Becca Constr. Co.,229 AD2d 426, 427-428 [1996]). The duties and responsibilities of the defendants cited by theplaintiff are consistent with those duties of a corporate officer.
The plaintiff's motion for leave to renew was properly denied (see Weitzenberg v Nassau County Dept. ofRecreation & Parks, 53 AD3d 653 [2008]). Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Covello andLeventhal, JJ., concur.