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
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION AS AN ASSET IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against City for Negligent Failure to Provide Emergency Medical Services—No “Special Relationship” Alleged
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITH A SAFETY DEVICE ENUMERATED IN THE LABOR LAW STATUTE.
Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted
Verdict Set Aside as Irreconcilably Inconsistent (Jury Found Defective Sidewalk Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall)
FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT VIOLATED JUDICIARY LAW 491 AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY A COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PORTION OF SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY DEFENDANT PARKING GARAGE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...