You are here: / / A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO ITS MEMBERS OR SHAREHOLDERS...
, ,

A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO ITS MEMBERS OR SHAREHOLDERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the complaint, noted that the breach-of-a-fiduciary-duty action was brought solely against the corporation, which does not owe its members or shareholders a fiduciary duty:

“[I]t is well settled that a corporation does not owe fiduciary duties to its members or shareholders” … . Here, while the complaint alleges that defendant’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiff in refusing to approve the sale of certain units in the cooperative market to plaintiff, plaintiff brought this action solely against the cooperative corporation and thus, the complaint is dismissed. C & J Bros., Inc. v Hunts Point Term. Produce Coop. Assn., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01454, First Dept 3-3-20

 

You might also like
Teachers’ and School Administrators’ Grievances Re Staff Cuts Stemming from School Closings Deemed Arbitrable​
A WARNING LETTER ISSUED TO THE NYC MAYOR BY THE NYC CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BOARD MUST BE RELEASED PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST BY THE NEW YORK TIMES (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST A DELAWARE DISSOLVED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF CANCELLATION HAS NOT BEEN NULLIFIED (FIRST DEPT).
Journalist Deemed “Limited Public Figure.”
Question of Fact Whether It Was Foreseeable that Overbooking a Theater Could Cause Crowd-Related Injury (Plaintiff Alleged Injury in a “Stampede”)
FACT THAT OBJECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANT OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY HIS ELECTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
RARE CASE WHERE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE A DANGEROUS CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING... THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN...