On October 8, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Jobble, Inc. v. CF Alerts Corp, 2025 NY Slip Op. 05506, holding that veil piercing claims failed because of insufficient allegations of domination or bad acts, explaining:
To survive a motion to dismiss the complaint, a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must allege facts that, if proved, establish that the party against whom the doctrine is asserted (1) exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) through such domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiff such that a court in equity will intervene. Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate or limited liability company form include the failure to adhere to corporate or limited liability company formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of corporate or limited liability company funds.
Here, the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support its allegation that Brensilber exercised complete domination over the corporate defendants. Moreover, even if the complaint had satisfied the first element of domination in the plaintiff’s attempt to pierce the corporate veil, the complaint is devoid of any allegations as to how Brensilber used his domination over the corporate defendants in order to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff.
In addition, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the complaint failed to sufficiently allege an alternative basis for imposing personal liability upon Brensilber for alleged acts of the corporate defendants. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the moving defendants which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Brensilber.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).