Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MORNINGSIDE FUEL CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. P. Baxter LANIUS, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered June 4, 1996, after a nonjury trial, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff interest of 9% on its award, and held the individual defendant Lanius personally liable, unanimously modified, on the law, to award plaintiff interest at the rate of 18% annually, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
In this action to recover the balance due on fuel oil deliveries and services rendered to defendants, defendants did not object to the provision on the invoices that a finance charge of 18% annually would be imposed on balances unpaid for over 30 days. Since there was evidence that this finance charge was within the range of trade practice, and no notice of objection was given, the finance charge became part of the agreement, and plaintiff was entitled to interest in that amount (UCC 2-207[2], and Official Comment 5 thereto; Secular v. Royal Athletic Surfacing Co., 66 A.D.2d 761, 411 N.Y.S.2d 615, lv. dismissed 46 N.Y.2d 1076; Citibank v. Liebowitz, 110 A.D.2d 615, 487 N.Y.S.2d 368). The evidence showed that defendant Lanius ordered the oil in his own name, that he dominated the defendant corporations, and that through that domination he abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong against plaintiff. Accordingly, piercing the corporate veil was permissible (see, Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation and Finance, 82 N.Y.2d 135, 141-142, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 13, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)