Search for: "State of NY v. General Elec. Co" Results 1 - 13 of 13
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 May 2010, 9:43 am
Generally, a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show: (1) complete domination and control of the subsidiary by the parent with respect to the transaction at issue; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff that resulted in the plaintiff's injury (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]; Do Gooder Prods., Inc. v American Jewish Theatre, Inc., 66 AD3d 527, 528… [read post]
15 May 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Co., 88 NY2d 869, and [2] that the violation must be of the kind that "creates a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety," citing Remba v Federation Empl. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 4:28 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Article Four further stated as follows:As an extremely loving and devoted parent, I found that the love, care and concern which I lavished on my daughter was not acknowledged or returned in any way by my daughter. [read post]