shareowners to advance their own “purely personal rather than corporate ends.” Wm. Passalacqua Builders v. Resnick Developers S., 933 F.2d 131, 138 (2d Cir.1991) (citing Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Atlas, 40 N.Y.2d 652, 656-57, 389 N.Y.S.2d 327, 357 N.E.2d 983 (1976), and Walkovszky v. Carlton, 18 N.Y.2d 414, 417, 420, 276 N.Y.S.2d 585, 223 N.E.2d 6 (1966)). The question of “[w]hether the corporate veil should be pierced requires a fact specific inquiry; there are no bright-line rules.” DER Travel Servs. v. Dream Tours & Adventures, Inc., No. 99 CV 2231, 2005 WL 2848939, at *8 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 28, 2005); see also MAG Portfolio Consult, GMBH v. Merlin Biomed Group LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 64 (2d Cir.2001); Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers S., Inc., 933 F.2d 131 at 139 (<HOLDING>) (quoting American Protein Corp. v. AB Volvo,
holding common officers between corporations are not enough to disregard corporate separateness holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter holding that because the corporate parent and subsidiary defendants before it observed all of the corporate formalities necessary to maintain corporate separateness notwithstanding the parents active involvement in the subsidiaries operations the evidence did not establish that the entities were alter egos of one another holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract holding that the infinite variety of situations that might warrant disregarding the corporate form is not an easy task because disregarding corporate separateness is a remedy that differs with the circumstances of each case 