From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bedford Hills Supply, Inc. v. Hubert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1998
251 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

In Bedford Hills Supply, the corporation paid its back taxes, penalties and interest in the same year as the action was commenced; however, it is unclear whether the corporation achieved reinstatement before or after commencement of the action.

Summary of this case from Lodato v. Greyhawk North America

Opinion

June 15, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, Bedford Hills Supply, Inc., is in the plumbing supply business. The defendant R.M. Hubert Sons, Inc. (hereinafter RMH) is a plumbing and heating company which was incorporated in 1984. The defendants Christopher Hubert and Mark Hubert are the only officers and shareholders of RMH. In 1987 RMH opened a credit account with the plaintiff. On March 28, 1995, RMH was involuntarily dissolved by proclamation of the New York Secretary of State for failure to pay certain corporate taxes ( see, Tax Law § 203-a). It is undisputed that the individual defendants were unaware of the dissolution.

Between June 1, 1995, and December 31, 1995, RMH continued to make purchases on account from the plaintiff. On December 3, 1996, in accordance with the provisions of Tax Law § 203-a (7), RMH filed a "certificate of consent" with the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance and paid all past due taxes as well as penalties and interest.

In 1996 the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover for goods which had been supplied to RMH on account and for which no payment had been received. The plaintiff argued that the individual defendants fraudulently represented the corporate status of RMH during the period in question, and therefore they were personally liable.

Since the parties have stipulated that the individual defendants had no actual knowledge of the dissolution during the period of time the goods were purchased on account, the complaint fails to state a cause of action against them to recover damages for fraud ( see generally, Hauser v. Lista, 201 A.D.2d 873; see also, Matter of Buffalo Mem. Chapels v. Axelrod, 152 A.D.2d 969).

Miller, J. P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bedford Hills Supply, Inc. v. Hubert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1998
251 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

In Bedford Hills Supply, the corporation paid its back taxes, penalties and interest in the same year as the action was commenced; however, it is unclear whether the corporation achieved reinstatement before or after commencement of the action.

Summary of this case from Lodato v. Greyhawk North America
Case details for

Bedford Hills Supply, Inc. v. Hubert

Case Details

Full title:BEDFORD HILLS SUPPLY, INC., Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER HUBERT, Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 15, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 404

Citing Cases

Lodato v. Lodato

A dissolved corporation has no existence, either de jure or de facto, except for a limited de jure existence…

Lodato v. Greyhawk North America

before it was reinstated" ( id.). Because it was undisputed in Klein that the subject corporation had never…