Majority
In an action, inter alia, to recover payment for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated May 31, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Stanley Jassem and Ellen Jassem, doing business as Lumar Lobster.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover payment for lobsters sold and delivered between August 12, 2005 and October 14, 2005. The plaintiff claimed an outstanding balance due of $24,871.39.
In the order under review, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the individual defendants Stanley Jassem and Ellen Jassem, doing business as Lumar Lobster (hereinafter the Jassems). Since the fifth cause of action only sought to pierce the corporate veil of the defendant Kaynard Lobster Corp. (hereinafter Kaynard) in order to make the Jassems personally liable, and since New York “does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil” (Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 15 AD3d 528 , 529 [2005]), the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the fifth cause of action. However, as the allegations in support of the purported fifth cause of action are factual assertions, we have granted leave to replead such allegations in a second amended complaint, if the plaintiff be so advised (id.).
Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the sixth cause of action of the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the Jassems (see Shisgal v Brown, 21 AD3d 845 , 847 [2005]; British Ins. Co. of Cayman v Lancer Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 698 , 698-699 [2003]; Winston Resources v Glehan, 274 AD2d 475 , 476 [2000]; Menaker v Alstaedter, 134 AD2d 412 , 413 [1987]). (The sixth cause of ac
Cases cited
- Fiber Consultants, Inc. v. Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp. 15 AD3d 528 at 529 p. 998
- Shisgal v. Brown 21 AD3d 845 at 847 p. 998
- Winston Resources, Inc. v. Glehan 274 AD2d 475 at 476 p. 998
- Leon v. Martinez 84 NY2d 83 at 87-88 p. 999
- Gallina v. Fedrizzi 39 AD3d 467 p. 999