| James v Loran Realty V Corp. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05409 [85 AD3d 619] |
| June 23, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Kayla James, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, AtaraJames, et al., Appellants, v Loran Realty V Corp., Defendant, and Frank Palazzolo et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] 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 B. Green, J.), entered October 30, 2009,which, after a nonjury trial, in this action for personal injuries sustained by infant plaintiff as aresult 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 ofLoran V and hold the individual defendants personally liable for plaintiffs' injuries, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
"[P]iercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised completedomination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such dominationwas 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 exercisedcomplete domination and control over Loran V, they have failed to show that Palazzolo's actionswere for the purpose of leaving the corporation judgment proof or that his actions amounted to awrong against them (see Fantazia Intl.Corp. v CPL Furs N.Y., Inc., 67 AD3d 511 [2009]). Although Loran V is now ajudgment-proof shell, it was not such at the time the individual defendants turned over control ofit, and plaintiffs have offered no evidence showing that Palazzolo, or any other defendant, hadany 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.Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.