In an August 3, 2011 decision by Justice Driscoll the court granted a motion to dismiss claims against an entity seeking to pierce the corporate veil and against that entity’s purported “controlling officer.” The litigation arose from a mortgage transaction which was the subject of a companion foreclosure suit. This litigation – brought by the mortgagee – brought claims against various individuals and entities sounding in breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud and unjust enrichment. The complaint only stated a cause of action for “breach of the corporate veil” against one of the defendant entities and then stated a claim against that entity’s “controlling officer” by “imputing” to that person the entity’s purported wrongful conduct. The court dismissed both claims holding that there was no independent claim for “piercing the corporate veil” and that there were no allegations of wrongful conduct by the entity (or its principle) supporting liability against the purported “controlling officer.”
Ersail v. Pour et al., Sup Ct, Nassau County, August 3, 2011, Driscoll, J, Index No.20835/10.