Opinion
January 25, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated September 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Robert F. Lutz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Kaplan Gottbetter Levenson, New York, N.Y. (Steven M. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.
Rosenthal Goldhaber, P.C., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Robert D. Goldhaber of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff contends that the corporate veil of Homestead Electric, Ltd., should be pierced and that its sole shareholder, Robert F. Lutz, should be held liable for its debts. However, to pierce the corporate veil, the plaintiff must show that the owner exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked, and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiff's injury (see, Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation and Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135; Hyland Meat Co. v. Tsagarakis, 202 A.D.2d 552).
Here, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing that Lutz used his alleged domination of Homestead Electric, Ltd., to commit a fraud or wrong against it. Thus, Lutz was entitled to summary judgment (see, TNS Holdings v. MKI Sec. Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 335; Hyland Meat Co. v. Tsagarakis, supra).