You are here: / Corporation Law
, , , ,

A LEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CORPORATION AND DEFENDANTS (ONE OF WHOM WAS A MEMBER OF PLAINTIFF’S BOARD) WAS NOT VOTED ON BY A MAJORITY OF DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS AND WAS THEREFORE VOIDABLE UNDER BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 713(B); DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARAY DUTY TO THE CORPORATION BY SUBLETTING THE LEASED PREMISES FOR A MUCH HIGHER RENT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S KNOWLEDGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff cooperative apartment corporation (HDFC) demonstrated defendants (one of whom was a member of plaintiff’s board) had entered a lease with plaintiff which was not voted upon by a majority of disinterested directors and was therefore voidable under Business Corporation Law 713(b). In addition plaintiff demonstrated defendants had breached their fiduciary duty to the corporation:

Plaintiff, a low-income cooperative apartment corporation (HDFC), established prima facie that the lease between plaintiff and defendants Thomas Green and A Cup of Harlem was not voted on by a majority of disinterested directors and is therefore voidable under Business Corporation Law § 713(b). A Cup of Harlem is a partnership between Thomas Green and Siwana Green, who are married. Siwana Green is a shareholder in the HDFC and a former officer and member of plaintiff’s board of directors. By lease dated April 1, 2004, while Siwana Green was one of three members of the board, plaintiff leased one of the two commercial spaces in the building to Thomas Green and A Cup of Harlem for a 99-year term, with a monthly rent of $700 for the entirety of the term and an option to extend the lease for a 10-year term at a rate of $800 per month. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted a former board member’s affidavit that he was elected to a one-year term in February 2004, that he only learned of the lease in 2018, when Siwana Green was removed from the board, and that he never would have approved a lease with such “outlandish” terms. …

The record demonstrates that Siwana Green breached her fiduciary duty to plaintiff by diverting a corporate opportunity without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent and admittedly receiving more than $200,000 profit from the sublessee to whom, in March 11, 2009, Thomas Green sublet the leased premises at a monthly rent of $2,500 for a ten-year term, which was then renewed for a monthly rent of $2,800. 67-69 St. Nicholas Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v Green, 2022 NY Slip Op 04087, First Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Here a low-rent lease between plaintiff corporation and defendants (one of whom was a member of plaintiff’s board) was voidable because the lease was not approved by a majority of disinterested directors. Defendants sublet the leased premises for a much higher rent without plaintiff corporation’s knowledge and thereby breached their fiduciary duty to the corporation.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED) VIOLATIONS IF THEY EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS ALLEGED HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating defendants’ counterclaims alleging violations of the Labor Law, noted that corporate shareholders and officers can only be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations if they exercise control of a corporation’s day-to-day operations, which was alleged here:

“[C]orporate shareholders and officers generally may not be subjected to civil liability for corporate violations of the Labor Law absent allegations that such persons exercised control of the corporation’s day-to-day operations by, for example, hiring and firing employees, supervising employee work schedules, and determining the method and rate of pay” … . Here, the defendants adequately alleged, inter alia, that the additional defendants controlled the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff, including the plaintiff’s payment practices. Interstate Home Loan Ctr., Inc. v United Mtge. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03715, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Corporate shareholders and officers may be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations only if they exercise control over the day-to-day operations of the corporation.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

A CORPORATE OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NONFEASANCE (DOING NOTHING), AS OPPOSED MISFEASANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the individual defendant, John Milevoi, an officer or shareholder of the  property management company, defendant M&L Milevoi Management, must be dismissed. Plaintiff alleged a leak in the ceiling of her apartment caused her slip and fall:

The complaint should be dismissed against the individual defendant John Milevoi, because there is no allegation that his liability stems from an act of misfeasance or malfeasance, as opposed to nonfeasance. A corporate officer or shareholder may not be held personally liable for a failure to act … . Defendant owner and defendant management company, on the other hand, have not established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. De Barcacel v 1015 Concourse Owners Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02869, First Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: A corporate officer or shareholder cannot be personally liable for nonfeasance (doing nothing), as opposed to misfeasance. The complaint against the corporate officer or shareholder here was dismissed. But the complaint against the corporation was not. The corporation is a property management company and plaintiff’s slip and fall complaint alleged there was a water leak in her apartment.

 

/by
, ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s did not demonstrate they did not receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action, and did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default. Therefore defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 317, a defaulting defendant that was “served with a summons, other than by personal delivery” may be permitted to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense … . Service on a limited liability company by delivery of the pleadings to the Secretary of State does not constitute personal delivery … . “The mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint is not sufficient to establish lack of actual notice of the action in time to defend for the purpose of CPLR 317” … .

The affidavit … submitted by the … defendants in support of their motion, amounted to nothing more than a mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint … . … [T]he … defendants did not contend that the address it had on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect … .

… [T]he … defendants’ mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint, without more, was insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) … .Andrews v Wartburg Receiver, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01980, Second Dept 2-23-22

Practice Point: A denial of the receipt of the summons and complaint, without more, does not demonstrate actual notice of the summons was not received in time to defend, and does not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for a defaulting.

 

/by
,

ALTHOUGH THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST A SWISS CORPORATION REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF SWISS LAW, NEW YORK IS THE PROPER FORUM; MOST ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REFLECT A SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS TO NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York, not Switzerland, was the proper forum for this shareholders’ derivative action against a Swiss corporation, despite the need to apply Swiss law:

Defendants did not establish that in the interest of substantial justice, this action should be heard in another forum, namely, Switzerland (see generally CPLR 327[a] …). Adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims, which are undisputedly governed by Swiss law, will not place an undue burden on New York courts … . New York courts are frequently called on to apply the laws of foreign jurisdictions and in this case, there is no indication that the relevant law, which is from only one foreign jurisdiction, is in dispute or is distinctly abstruse … . That plaintiffs seek certain nonmonetary relief that may not be available or enforceable in Switzerland does not cut in favor of dismissal because defendants can seek to limit the damages sought and plaintiffs are now willing to withdraw their requests for nonmonetary relief as against [defendant corporation].

Defendants do not claim that litigation in New York will cause them any hardship and although this matter could be litigated in Switzerland, Swiss courts do not permit trial by jury, which could pose some hardship to plaintiffs … . Moreover, most of defendant-board members are residents of New York and none are residents of Switzerland … . The allegations in the complaint make clear that this action has a substantial nexus to New York and at this point, it appears that the majority of the witnesses and evidence will be located in the United States, principally New York … . Wormwood Capital LLC v Mulleady, 2022 NY Slip Op 01526, First Dept 3-10-22

​Practice Point: Although this shareholders’ derivative action is against a Swiss corporation and requires the application of Swiss law, New York is the proper forum. Most of the directors live in New York, most of the witnesses are in the US and New York, most of the evidence is located in New York, and allegations in the complaint demonstrate a substantial nexus to New York. Defendants did not show they will suffer any prejudice if the suit is heard here.

 

/by
,

PLAINTIFF, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, PROPERLY PURSUED CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-dissolved-corporation properly pursued claims and liabilities which arose prior to dissolution:

A dissolved corporation is permitted to pursue claims and liabilities that arose prior to dissolution as part of the winding up process (Business Corporation Law §§ 1005[a][1]; 1006[a][4]; [b] …). Plaintiff’s commencement of this litigation, as well as the settlement of other predissolution claims against defendant, and its use of settlement funds to satisfy its outstanding liabilities in the wage violations case, are expressly contemplated and authorized by Business Corporation Law § 1006(a)(4). Thus, it was error to find that plaintiff’s dissolution resulted in it lacking capacity to maintain this action against defendant for work performed before plaintiff was dissolved … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s winding up period has not been so extended as to be considered unreasonable … . TADCO Constr. Corp. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 00990, First Dept 2-15-22

 

/by
, , ,

THE FLORIDA DEFENDANTS ADVERTISED THROUGH A NATIONWIDE WEBSITE; THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS SOLICITED THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EITHER GENERAL OR SPECIFIC (LONG-ARM) JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs did not make out a prima facie case of general or specific (long-arm) jurisdiction over the Florida defendants in this breach of contract and fraud action. Through email correspondence the New York plaintiffs entered a contract for the creation of a “Dating App” for which plaintiffs allegedly paid $100,000. Plaintiff alleged defendants never provided the Dating App and sued in New York. The jurisdiction over the breach of contract action was analyzed under the general jurisdiction criteria, and jurisdiction over the fraud (tort) action was analyzed under the specific jurisdiction (long-arm) criteria:

In opposing the separate motions of [defendants], the plaintiffs asserted that jurisdiction over both defendants was proper pursuant to CPLR 301 and 302(a)(1) and (3). “Under modern jurisprudence, a court may assert general all-purpose jurisdiction or specific conduct-linked jurisdiction over a particular defendant”… . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, they did not make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction … . The complaint itself establishes that [the individual defendant] is domiciled in Florida and that [the corporate defendant] was incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Florida … . Further, the facts alleged, even if established, do not support a conclusion that [defendant corporation’s] contacts with New York were so “continuous and systematic” …  as to render it “essentially at home” in New York … .

Specific jurisdiction over a defendant is obtained through New York’s long-arm statute, CPLR 302. * * *

“The CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions” … . …

The affidavits … establish that [the corporate defendant] advertises its services nationwide through a website that is not specifically directed toward New York residents or businesses. It is undisputed that the plaintiff … initiated the contact between the parties and solicited the defendants’ services in designing the Dating App. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, [the corporate defendant’s] website does not constitute transacting business within the State. Fanelli v Latman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

/by
, ,

THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS ACTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2017 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THE PRIOR ACTION CONCERNED ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2019 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, held the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not preclude this Sullivan County action, which sought to determine whether a 2017 election of the board of dIrectors of plaintiff religious corporation was valid. A prior action in Kings County determined a 2019 election of the board of directors of the same corporation was a nullity:

As defendants’ amended petition and the order of Supreme Court … in the Kings County proceeding reflect, the issue to be determined therein was the validity of the 2019 election, not the validity of the 2017 election. Defendants sought in that proceeding to declare the 2019 election a nullity and, as a result, enjoin the individual plaintiffs, purportedly elected in 2019, from acting as the board of directors. Indeed, the court went out of its way during oral argument in that matter to so limit the issue when it stated that it “want[ed] to be very clear that [it was] making no determination in this case as to whether [defendants] have any right to control the corporation by virtue of any acts that predated the [June 2019 election.]” The court further clarified “that [it] take[s] no position on the validity of any actions that [defendants] claim[] to have taken in 2017 and thereafter,” and added that the allegations relating to the 2017 election was part of “[t]he Sullivan County matter” which “is not before [it],” and that the proceeding “has nothing to do with the Sullivan County matter.” More importantly, the order signed by the court was so circumscribed, and granted the amended petition “to the sole extent that it [sought] to invalidate” the 2019 election. Congregation Machne Ger v Berliner, 2022 NY Slip Op 00483, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

/by
,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS IN NASSAU COUNTY BUT NEVER AMENDED ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION WHICH DESIGNATED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AS QUEENS COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FROM QUEENS TO NASSAU COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this slip and fall case (Valley Park) did not present sufficient evidence to support a change of venue from Queens County to Nassau County:

“To effect a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(1), a defendant must show that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper and that its choice of venue is proper” … . To succeed on its motion, Valley Park was obligated to demonstrate that, on the date that this action was commenced, none of the parties resided in Queens County … . Only if Valley Park made such a showing was the plaintiff required to establish, in opposition, via documentary evidence, that the venue she selected was proper … .

… Although Valley Park claimed that its principal office was in Nassau County and that it no longer maintained its principal office in Queens County, it failed to prove that its certificate of incorporation had been amended to designate a county other than Queens … . The plaintiff’s submission, in opposition, of a certified copy of Valley Park’s certificate of incorporation, which stated that Valley Park’s principal office was located in Queens County, further underscored that her choice of venue was proper. Green v Duga, 2021 NY Slip Op 06990, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A DEMAND ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO PURSUE A DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS FUTILE; THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, A CLAIM FOR WHICH NO DAMAGES NEED BE ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirement that a demand on the board of directors to pursue a derivative action was futile and therefore is excused. In addition, the complaint adequately alleged a breach of fiduciary duty:

Plaintiffs properly alleged demand futility as required under Business Corporation Law § 626 (c) by asserting that at least four out of seven of the members of derivative plaintiff/nominal defendant Xerox Holdings Corporation’s board of directors were controlled by Icahn, Xerox’s largest single shareholder, and thus lacked the independence to make an impartial decision on bringing suit … . * * *

… [T]he claim for breach of fiduciary duty was pleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b), as the complaint states that the Icahn defendants used confidential information about Xerox’s planned acquisition of HP Inc. to buy HP common shares before news of the acquisition became public and before HP’s stock price increased … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ claims do not fail for lack of damages, as damages “have never been considered to be an essential requirement for a cause of action founded on a breach of fiduciary duty” … . The function of an action for breach of fiduciary duty “is not merely to compensate the plaintiff for wrongs committed by the defendant but . . . to prevent them, by removing from . . . trustees all inducement to attempt dealing for their own benefit in matters . . . to which their . . . trust relates” … . Miami Firefighters’ Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn, 2021 NY Slip Op 06446, First Dept 11-18-21

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy