(S.D.N.Y.1970) (Weinfeld, J.) (suggesting that “an intent to commit a fraud or to violate a statutory duty” is necessary “to justify piercing the corporate veil”); Morris, 82 N.Y.2d at 141-42, 603 N.Y.S.2d 807, 623 N.E.2d 1157 (requiring a “wrongful or unjust act toward plaintiff’). Thus, “a [corporation’s] breach of contract, without evidence of fraud or corporate misconduct, is not sufficient to pierce the corporate veil, which is an equitable remedy at its core.” Ross Univ. Sch. of Med., Ltd. v. Brooklyn-Queens Health Care, Inc., No. 09-CV-1410, 2013 WL 1334271, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013) (citing Sheridan Broadcasting Corp. v. Small, 2004 WL 5833748 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. July 30, 2004), aff'd, 19 A.D.3d 331, 798 N.Y.S.2d 45 (1st Dep’t 2005)); see also Cary Oil, 257 F.Supp.2d at 759-60 (<HOLDING>). Although courts have pierced the corporate
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding that a corporations breach of contract alone without evidence of bad faith the commission of a fraud or any sort of nefarious motivation on the part of any of the controlling defendants does not warrant veil piercing holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach