Opinion
8041 Index 654930/17
01-08-2019
KULIARCHAR SEA FOODS (COX'S BAZAR) LTD., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SOLEIL CHARTERED BANK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Peyrot & Associates, P.C., New York (David C. Van Leeuwen of counsel), for appellants. Freiberger Haber LLP, Melville (Jeffrey M. Haber of counsel), for respondent.
Peyrot & Associates, P.C., New York (David C. Van Leeuwen of counsel), for appellants.
Freiberger Haber LLP, Melville (Jeffrey M. Haber of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Mazzarelli, Webber, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered April 6, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied those branches of defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and as against defendants Soleil Capitale Corporation (Soleil Capitale) and Govind Srivastava, on the grounds of a defense founded upon documentary evidence and failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Supreme Court properly held that, at this stage of the litigation, plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleges facts which state a claim against Soleil Capitale and Srivastava so as to pierce defendant Soleil Chartered Bank (SCB)'s corporate veil and hold Soleil Capitale and Srivastava liable as alter egos of SCB, and that defendants' documentary evidence fails to conclusively refute these allegations (see Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141–142, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157 [1993] ; Shisgal v. Brown, 21 A.D.3d 845, 848, 801 N.Y.S.2d 581 [1st Dept. 2005] ). That branch of the motion which was to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was also properly denied (see generally Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 [2014] ).