From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commercial Sites v. Prestige Photo Studios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 28, 2000.

May 8, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to enforce a confession of judgment, the defendants Robert Grilli and Christine Grilli appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered December 29, 1998, as, after an inquest, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $32,122.33.

Stacey Van Malden, Bronx, N.Y., for appellants.

Camardella Brown, LLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Lunney Murtagh, LLC, of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly pierced the corporate veil and imposed liability on the individual defendants Robert Grilli and Christine Grilli for the unpaid rent and related charges owed to the plaintiff by the corporate defendant Prestige Photo Studios, Inc. (hereinafter Prestige). The plaintiff established at the inquest that its loss was caused by the Grillis' domination of Prestige (see, Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141). The evidence revealed the absence of formalities such as corporate meetings and records, inadequate capitalization of Prestige, the intermingling of personal and corporate funds, and the use of corporate property for other purposes, including the formation of a second corporation with overlapping ownership, officers, directors, and personnel (see, Anderson St. Realty Corp. v. RHMB New Rochelle Leasing Corp., 243 A.D.2d 595; Simplicity Pattern Co. v. Miami Tru-Color Off-Set Serv., 210 A.D.2d 24; Fern, Inc. v. Adjmi, 197 A.D.2d 444).

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court's refusal to vacate their default in failing to oppose the motion to strike their answer was a provident exercise of discretion (see, CPLR 5015[a][1]; Lovisa Constr. Co. v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 148 A.D.2d 913; Scuba Plus Sky v. Partridge Place Corp., 201 A.D.2d 260).

RITTER, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Commercial Sites v. Prestige Photo Studios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Commercial Sites v. Prestige Photo Studios

Case Details

Full title:COMMERCIAL SITES, CO., RESPONDENT, v. PRESTIGE PHOTO STUDIOS, INC., ET…

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

Date published: May 8, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 491

Citing Cases

Ventresca Realty v. Houlihan

The corporation owned no assets, held no investments, conducted no business, had no employees, did not…

Hollow Road Farms, Inc. v. Quo Vadis International, LLC

Furthermore, Kennan conceded that Quo Vadis did not have an operating agreement, did not have an actual…