You are here: / / ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY...
, ,

ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly dissolved a closely-held corporation, finding that the respondent shareholders had “breached their fiduciary duties owed to petitioners by engaging in oppressive conduct aimed at ‘freez[ing]’ petitioners out of the corporation, as well as looting, wasting and/or diverting corporate assets for noncorporate purposes.” The decision is detailed and fact-specific. The court noted that the shares of two of the petitioners were beneficial shares in that they were held in trust by their father, who was also a petitioner. Although the children did not have standing to bring an action to dissolve the corporation because the holders of beneficial shares cannot vote, their father, as trustee, could vote, which conferred standing. The court further noted that an action to dissolve a corporation based on a breach of a fiduciary duty is equitable in nature and therefore the six-year statute of limitations applies. The action was timely because the first overt repudiation of a fiduciary duty by the respondents occurred within six years of the action:

​

Here, the gravamen of the petition is that respondents, as the majority shareholders, breached their fiduciary duties owed to petitioners, as the minority shareholders. Although the petition alleges fraudulent acts in the form of looting, the allegation of fraud is not essential to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. In light of this, and the fact that the remedy of a judicial dissolution is equitable in nature, we find that “the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213 (1) applies” … , and it does not commence “until there has been an open repudiation by the fiduciary or the relationship has otherwise been clearly terminated”… . In our view, respondents’ attempt in 2009 to force petitioners to sell their shares is the earliest point at which respondents can be said to have openly repudiated the fiduciary relationship. Given that this proceeding was commenced within six years of the 2009 force-out attempt, we agree with Supreme Court that this proceeding is not time-barred. * * *

​

Business Corporation Law § 1104-a permits a court to dissolve a closely-held corporation where, as is relevant here, those in control of the corporation have engaged in “oppressive actions toward the complaining shareholders” or have “looted, wasted, or diverted” corporate assets for noncorporate purposes (Business Corporation Law § 1104-a [a] [1], [2] …). “Although the term ‘oppressive actions’ is not statutorily defined, the Court of Appeals has held that ‘oppression should be deemed to arise . . . when the majority conduct substantially defeats expectations that, objectively viewed, were both reasonable under the circumstances and were central to the petitioner[s’] decision to join the venture'”… . Contrary to respondents’ contention, this standard is equally applicable to passive shareholders, such as petitioners, inasmuch as the standard is not focused on the complaining shareholders’ level of involvement with the corporation but, rather, their reasonable expectations and whether those expectations were defeated … . Matter of Twin Bay Vil., Inc. v Kasian, 2017 NY Slip Op 06024, Third Dept 8-3-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (DISSOLUTION, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/DISSOLUTION (CORPORATION LAW, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CLOSELY HELD CORPORATIONS (DISSOLUTION, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Alleging Sexual Touching Were Not Corroborated—the Child’s Repeating the Same Allegations to Several Persons Does Not Constitute Corroboration—Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings Reversed
Arbitrator Did Not Have the Authority (CPLR 7511) to Modify an Award by Adding Interest, Even If Interest Should Have Been Awarded as a Matter of Law
THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPTL 1125 IN THIS PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE CASE (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY HAD PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK AND RAILING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL INTO A GORGE, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, HE DID NOT PROVE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AND DID NOT PROVE THE NOTE WAS INDORSED IN BLANK OR TO HIM, APPELLATE COURT CAN INDEPENDENTLY WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER IS INCARCERATED FOR ASSAULTING MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS SEVEN MONTHS PREGNANT, FATHER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER VISITATION WITH THE CHILD, WHICH NEED NOT INCLUDE CONTACT VISITATION, IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; IT IS THE MOTHER’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE VISITATION WOULD BE HARMFUL (THIRD DEPT).
EMPLOYEE’S ESTATE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD THAT ACCRUED UP UNTIL THE EMPLOYEE’S DEATH, NOT THE ENTIRE SLU AWARD (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT).

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

ATTORNEY’S INACTION NOT IMPUTED TO THE CLIENT, DEFAULT ORDER AND JUDGMENT... FAMILY COURT HAD THE POWER TO RETROACTIVELY DISMISS A NEGLECT PETITION AND IMPOSE...