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.
COMMERCIAL SITES, CO., respondent, v. PRESTIGE PHOTO STUDIOS, INC., et al., defendants, Robert Grilli, et al., appellants.
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.
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, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157). 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, 663 N.Y.S.2d 279; Simplicity Pattern Co. v. Miami Tru-Color Off-Set Serv., 210 A.D.2d 24, 619 N.Y.S.2d 29; Fern, Inc. v. Adjmi, 197 A.D.2d 444, 602 N.Y.S.2d 615).
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, 539 N.Y.S.2d 541; Scuba Plus Sky v. Partridge Place Corp., 201 A.D.2d 260, 608 N.Y.S.2d 826).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: May 08, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)