In order to hold someone personally liable for corporate misdeeds, you have to “pierce the corporate veil” first. I have seen nothing in these NY cases that signifies that any veil piercing was done.
Yes, piercing the veil is part of the alter-ego doctrine. A creditor would have to show co-mingling of business and personal funds and a blurring of distinction between personal and business activities. It’s more common than you would think, but nevertheless a creditor would have to submit EVIDENCE of such things. Something this quack judge has not done.
In order to hold someone personally liable for corporate misdeeds, you have to “pierce the corporate veil” first. I have seen nothing in these NY cases that signifies that any veil piercing was done.>>> They are assuming that the mere scanning of the docs makes it an accounting entry. which only a dumb lawyer would assume.