You are here: / / Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege a Presuit Demand Would Be Futile
,

Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege a Presuit Demand Would Be Futile

The First Department, noting that the presuit demand required by Business Corporation Law 626(c) applies to Limited Liability Companies, determined that plaintiff failed to adequately allege the presuit demand was excused as futile. The court noted that Business Corporation Law 625(c) does not differentiate between majority and minority shareholders and a corporation’s refusal to provide information is not on the list of circumstances where a demand is excused:

Pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 626(c), a plaintiff shareholder must “set forth in the complaint – with particularity – an attempt to secure the initiation of such action by the board or the reasons for not making such effort” … . Demand is excused due to futility when a complaint alleges with particularity that: (1) “a majority of the board of directors is interested in the challenged transaction”; or (2) “the board of directors did not fully inform themselves about the challenged transaction to the extent reasonably appropriate under the circumstances”; or (3) “the challenged transaction was so egregious on its face that it could not have been the product of sound business judgment of the directors” … . The demand requirement of Business Corporation Law § 626(c) also applies to members of New York limited liability companies … .

The complaint alleges only that since Sowers owns 80% of the LLC, it would be futile for plaintiff to make a demand upon him to consent to the filing of an action on the LLC’s behalf. However, this Court has made clear that Business Corporation Law § 626(c) “does not differentiate between minority and majority shareholders for demand purposes” … . We note that Sowers’ alleged concealment of financial information does not warrant a finding that demand was futile, since “[a] corporation’s refusal to provide information to its shareholders is not on the [] list of circumstances where demand is excused” … , Barone v Sowers, 2015 NY Slip Op 04195, 1st Dept, 5-14-15

 

You might also like
STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Criteria for the “Fiduciary Exception” to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of a Derivative Action Explained
MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER “TEMPORARY WORKS” CLAUSE IN INSURANCE POLICY.
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY WHO PURPORTED TO WAIVE SERVICE OF PROCEES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF ALL DEFENDANTS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE; HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD NOT AGREED ON THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SALE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S OWN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE CLEANED THE AREA WHERE HE STEPPED ON A NAIL PROVED DEFENDANT DID NOT NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE NAIL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ORDER WAS NOT ENTERED ON CONSENT AND THEREFORE WAS APPEALABLE; GRANDPARENTS’ PETITIONS FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining... For Purposes of CPLR 205 (a) (Allowing the Commencement of a New Action within...