You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUSINESS...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISSOLVED THE CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have ignored the statutory notice requirements in this action to dissolve a closely held corporation (VJN) and should not have dissolved the corporation without a hearing:

Business Corporation Law § 1106(a) provides, inter alia, that, upon the filing of a petition for dissolution of a corporation, “the court shall make an order requiring the corporation and all persons interested in the corporation to show cause before it . . . why the corporation should not be dissolved.” The statute further provides, in relevant part, that “[a] copy of the order to show cause shall be published as prescribed therein, at least once in each of the three weeks before the time appointed for the hearing thereon, in one or more newspapers, specified in the order,” and that a copy of the order be served upon the New York State Tax Commission (hereinafter the Tax Commission) … . Here, it is undisputed that the petitioner’s order to show cause contained a provision providing for its publication; however, that provision was stricken, and therefore, the order to show cause ultimately was not published. It is also undisputed that the order to show cause was never served on the Tax Commission. …

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner established his entitlement to the dissolution of VJN. The affidavit submitted by the respondent in opposition to the petition raised questions of fact regarding the merits of the petition and the appropriate remedy … . Indeed, there is no indication that the court gave any consideration as to whether a remedy other than dissolution would have been appropriate … . Under these circumstances, the court should not have ordered the dissolution of VJN and the sale of the subject property without conducting a hearing … . Matter of Nicastro v VJN Real Estate Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06495, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING THEORY, FRAUD IN THIS CASE; AN AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN OR OBTAIN A MORTGAGE IS A CONTRACT INVOLVING AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND IS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE-OF-FRAUDS WRITING-REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER A CHAIR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER THE CHAIR, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE OFFICER REENTERED THE HOME TO LOOK UNDER THE CHAIR (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK IN THE ON-COMING LANE WHILE ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN IN AN INTERSECTION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees after Plaintiff’s Motion for a Voluntary Discontinuance in a Foreclosure Action Was Granted Without Prejudice—Defendant Was Not a “Prevailing Party” within the Meaning of Real Property Law 282—Denial of Attorney’s Fees Was Not an Abuse of Discretion Under CPLR 3217 (c)
33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY MADE.

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

BOTH PARENTS ACKNOWLEDGED A CHANGE IN THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WAS NEEDED, FAMILY... PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO MOP UP TRACKED IN SNOW...