JAMES v. Antonio Raimondo, Defendant. (2005)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered August 7, 2004, which denied defendants-appellants' motion and cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint as against them for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs' factual allegations, accepted as true and liberally construed as they must be at this procedural juncture (see Cron v. Hargro Fabrics, 91 N.Y.2d 362, 366, 670 N.Y.S.2d 973, 694 N.E.2d 56 [1998] ), and particularly as amplified by their documentary submissions (see id.;   Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17 [1977] ), suffice to set forth legally cognizable claims against defendants-appellants.   Appellants' affidavits were patently insufficient to show conclusively (see id.) that they should be shielded from liability because they are individuals and corporate entities distinct from the judgment-proof corporation that owned the premises where the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained lead poisoning.   Indeed, appellants' affidavits in no way disproved plaintiffs' factual allegations setting forth a web of corporate financing arrangements evidently initiated for the purpose of leaving real properties owned by defendants over-indebted and judgment-proof.   Those allegations, together with plaintiffs' documentary evidence, most notably a mortgage spreader agreement, were sufficient to make out a cause of action against appellants assigning liability by piercing the corporate veil (see Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157 [1993] ).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.