Cedar Capital Mgt. Group Inc v. Lillie

2025 NY Slip Op 01569 · Appellate Division, First Department · March 18, 2025 · No. Index No. 656042/20; Appeal No. 3907; Case No. 2023-06801

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department decision affirms the Supreme Court's dismissal of multiple causes of action, including breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, brought by Cedar Capital Management Group Inc. against various defendants. The court held that plaintiffs failed to allege particularized facts necessary to pierce the corporate veil or establish alter ego liability for non-contracting defendants. Additionally, the fraud claims were properly dismissed due to insufficient particularity and because they merely alleged insincere promises to perform contractual obligations rather than independent wrongs.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Webber, J.P.; Friedman; González; Scarpulla; Michael
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
March 18, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 656042/20; Appeal No. 3907; Case No. 2023-06801
Procedural posture
Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint in part.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Cedar Capital Management Group Inc et al. v. Brian Lillie et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

breach of contractunjust enrichmentcommercial litigationcontractscorporate law

Practice areas

commercial litigationcontractscorporate law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether breach of contract claims can be maintained against non‑contracting defendants via an alter‑ego theory
  2. Whether the fraud‑based causes of action were sufficiently pleaded
  3. Whether the conspiracy and aiding‑and‑abetting fraud claims should be dismissed
  4. Whether the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed

Holdings

  1. Plaintiffs cannot rest a breach of contract claim on an alter‑ego theory of liability absent particularized facts to pierce the corporate veil; a simple breach of contract, without more, is not a fraud or wrong that would warrant piercing the corporate veil.
  2. The fraud claims were dismissed because the allegations were not sufficiently particularized to allege fraud.
  3. Those claims were properly dismissed for failure to allege a cognizable fraud cause of action.
  4. The unjust enrichment claim was properly dismissed because the parties’ contractual relationships governed the subject matter.

Key quotations

Supreme Court properly dismissed the breach of contract claims against Brian Lillie, Tracy Lillie, Lilliham Holdings Limited, eCreative Group Inc, and Three Wide Media, as only the Enterprise defendants are parties to the relevant contracts. (at 1)
A simple breach of contract, without more, is not a fraud or wrong that would warrant piercing the corporate veil. (at 1)

Factual background

Plaintiffs Cedar Capital Management Group Inc and others sued Brian Lillie and related entities alleging breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court dismissed the claims, and the appellants appealed.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County, entered orders on August 9, 2023 dismissing various causes of action. The appellants appealed; the Appellate Division, First Department reviewed and affirmed the dismissals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…