You are here: / Corporation Law
, ,

PROVIDING ILLEGAL HIV MEDICATIONS TO A PHARMACY FOR RESALE: (1) DID NOT CONSTITUTE GRAND LARCENY BECAUSE THE AGENT OF THE PHARMACY TO WHOM THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED KNEW THE DRUGS WERE ILLEGAL AND THAT KNOWLEDGE IS IMPUTED TO THE CORPORATION; AND (2) DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BECAUSE THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED TO A CORPORATION, NOT TO A PERSON WHO HAD NO MEDICAL NEED FOR THEM. AN UNSEALED COMPILATION OF WIRETAP RECORDINGS CONSTRUCTED FROM SEALED ORIGINALS WAS ADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, reversing defendant’s grand larceny and criminal diversion of prescription medications convictions, determined that: (1) the knowledge of the agent of the pharmacy to whom the illegal HIV drugs were provided must be imputed to the corporation, therefore the corporation was deemed to know it was receiving and selling illegal drugs; (2) the statute prohibiting criminal diversion of prescription drugs is aimed at street sales of prescription drugs to those who have no medical need for them, therefore the statute does not apply to supplying illegal drugs to a pharmacy for resale; (3) the moneylaundering convictions and related sentences should be affirmed; and (4) a compilation of wiretap recordings, although not sealed, was made from properly sealed recordings and was properly authenticated, therefore the compilation was admissible:

… [T]here is no statutory requirement that a properly authenticated composite recording be compared against the sealed original recording. Three simultaneous original recordings of the intercepted communications were created in this case. The composite recording was compared against an original version of the recordings, and [a witness] testified that the composite recording was a true and accurate reflection of the content of the original. ,,, [A] sealed version of the original recording existed to deter alteration of, and permit challenge to, the composite, thus satisfying the statute. * * *

[Re; Grand Larceny:] The People’s theory in this case was that the defendant … wrongfully took money from [the pharmacy] by falsely representing that the medications they were selling were lawful to sell, transfer, and dispense. The defendant argues … that the People failed to prove that such a false representation of past or existing fact was made to [the pharmacy] because [the agent] , a high managerial employee of [the pharmacy], knew that the medications were not lawful to sell, transfer, and dispense, and thus, [the pharmacy], by imputation, also knew this fact. We agree. * * *

[Re: Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications Penal Law § 178.25:] The defendant does not challenge the People’s premises that (1) the medications had left the legitimate stream of commerce rendered them “adulterated,” and (2) one cannot have a “medical need” for adulterated medications, as the term “medical need” is used in the statute. Thus, we do not address the validity of these premises. However, the defendant challenges the applicability of this statute to his alleged conduct on the basis that, by its terms, the statute cannot apply to a transfer of prescription medications to a corporation, as opposed to a person capable of having medical needs. Again, we agree. People v Gross, 2019 NY Slip Op 00461, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

IN THIS CPLR ARTICLE 4 PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RESPONDENT NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION VIOLATED ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY AND THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT-CORPORATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ITS AFFILIATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS AND WHETHER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE APPLIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a decision too fact-specific to be fairly summarized here, determined issues of fact were presented about whether certain actions taken by respondent not-for-profit corporation (TLCN) breached its fiduciary duty to its not-for-profit corporation affiliate (Coburn) and violated the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. The action was brought by the Attorney General in a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 4 which is similar to a summary judgment motion. The Third Department further held there were questions of fact whether the business judgment rule could properly be applied:

… Supreme Court acted properly in ordering TLCN to adopt a conflict of interest policy … .

… [I]nasmuch as Coburg is an independent corporation, TLCN may not operate Coburg in a manner inconsistent with Coburg’s purpose, nor engage in related party transactions without complying with the relevant provisions of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. * * *

Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether respondents violated their duty to Coburg by improperly utilizing its surplus to benefit TLCN and its other affiliates and by engaging in related party transactions that were not in Coburg’s best interest. …

… [T]he business judgment rule has no place where corporate officers or directors take actions that exceed their authority under the relevant corporate bylaws … , or where they make decisions affected by an inherent conflict of interest… . There are issues of fact in the present record that preclude application of the business judgment rule, specifically regarding whether respondents exceeded their authority by improperly utilizing Coburg’s surplus to benefit TLCN and its other affiliates and by engaging in related party transactions that were not in Coburg’s best interest. Matter of The People of The State of New York v The Lutheran Care Network, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08727, Third Dept 12-20-18

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel was properly applied in this  breach of contract (lease) case. Although plaintiff limited liability company did not exist at the time the lease was signed, defendant took possession of the property. Defendant was therefore estopped from escaping liability under the lease based on the nonexistence of plaintiff limited liability company:

“Since a nonexistent entity cannot acquire rights or assume liabilities, a corporation which has not yet been formed normally lacks capacity to enter into a contract”… . However, a corporation may be deemed to exist and possess the capacity to contract pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel … . The doctrine of incorporation by estoppel, or corporation by estoppel, is based on the principle that “one who has recognized the organization as a corporation in business dealings should not be allowed to quibble or raise immaterial issues on matters which do not concern him [or her] in the slightest degree or affect his [or her] substantial rights” … . TY Bldrs. II, Inc. v 55 Day Spa, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08345, Second Dept 12-5-18

CORPORATION LAW (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/ESTOPPEL  (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation back doctrine did not apply to an attempt to amend the answer to add a fraud cause of action against Tam, an officer of plaintiff corporation, because Tam and the corporation were not united in interest. Tam had signed the contract at issue as an officer, not in his individual capacity:

” The relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to an action after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the claim is deemed timely interposed, if (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well'” … . The original counterclaim asserted against the plaintiff alleged that plaintiff breached contractual obligations for which Tam—an officer of the corporation—was not individually liable … . “There is no legal theory of vicarious liability for breach of contract” by “an agent of a disclosed principal” … . Tam, when signing the contract in issue, did so as president of the plaintiff, and not individually. Therefore, the cross movants are not united in interest. Further, since Tam signed the contract, [defendant] was aware of Tam’s identity at the time the original answer was served. Therefore, failure to join Tam cannot be attributable to a mistake as to the identity of the proper parties … . Thus, the addition of Tam as a party to this action was improper. Roco G.C. Corp. v Bridge View Tower, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08164, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ( FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/UNITED IN INTEREST  (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the shareholder derivative action against HSBC (bank) alleging breach of a fiduciary duty to implement money laundering prevention safeguards should not have been dismissed. The nominal defendant, HSBC Holdings, is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and is headquartered in London. The motion to dismiss alleged the failure to seek permission for the action from the English High Court, as well as the failure to demonstrate the futility of seeking redress from the corporation, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, required dismissal of the complaint. The Second Department held that the rule requiring permission of the English court was procedural and therefore the law of the forum (New York), not the United Kingdom, applied. The Second Department further held that the complaint demonstrated the futility of first seeking redress from the corporation and New York was the proper forum:

… [T]he Court of Appeals decided Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd. (30 NY3d 247), which held that a Cayman Islands court rule requiring plaintiffs in shareholder derivative actions to first apply to the Cayman Islands Grand Court for leave to continue the action is a procedural rule of the Cayman Islands, and “therefore does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to litigate his derivative claims in New York” … . … Based upon the analysis set forth in Davis, we find that the judicial-permission requirement set forth in the UK Companies Act is a procedural rule applicable only in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland. …

As an alternative ground for affirmance … , the nominal defendants contend that the plaintiff lacks standing under New York law pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 626(c) because the amended complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff made efforts to secure initiation of the action by the board itself or set forth the reasons for not making such effort … . * * *

In view of the illegal purpose, magnitude, and duration of the alleged wrongdoing, as well as the identity of beneficiaries to the transactions, the allegations were such that the transactions should have come to the attention of senior management and the board of directors … . * * *

… [G]iven that the allegations of wrongdoing occurred in New York, that only 21 of the 75 individual defendants live and work outside of New York, and that 3 of the nominal defendants are either incorporated or headquartered in New York, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the nominal defendants were not entitled to dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens [CPLR 327]. Mason-Mahon v Flint, 2018 NY Slip Op 07716, Second Dept 11-14-18

CORPORATION LAW (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CORPORATION LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKING LAW  (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MONEY LAUNDERING (BANKING LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 327  (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 626 (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

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 Second Department determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusal to vacate a default judgment. Although the corporate defendant (Greenville) was not served personally, it failed to explain why it did not receive the summons and complaint:

CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been served with a summons other than by personal delivery 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 potentially meritorious defense … . “[S]ervice on a corporation through delivery of process to the Secretary of State is not personal delivery' to the corporation” … . “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” … . Whether to grant relief pursuant to CPLR 317 is discretionary … , and relief may be denied “where, for example, a defendant's failure to personally receive notice of the summons was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid such notice” … .

Here, Greenville did not contend that the address it kept on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect, and its shareholders effectively claimed ignorance as to why the summons and complaint were “unclaimed,” without offering any details as to how Greenville ordinarily received mail at that address. Further, Greenville offered no explanation as to why it did not receive any of the other correspondence from the plaintiff, all of which were sent to the same address. Under these circumstances, Greenville's conclusory and unsubstantiated denial of service of the certified mailing card and other correspondence from the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that it did not have actual notice of the action in time to defend … . Stevens v Stepanski, 2018 NY Slip Op 05954, Second Dept 8-29-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (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))/CPLR 317  (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))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (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))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (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))/CORPORATION LAW (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 REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, over a partial dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) had standing to challenge a Local Law which placed a two-year moratorium on the conversion of hotels to condominiums or other residential uses. The court further determined that the REBNY did not have standing to challenge the statute under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The REBNY alleged that 29 of its members owned hotels subject to the law:

Owners of real property who are subjected to a new zoning classification or other use restriction are “presumptively affected by the change” and “therefore technically have standing” to assert claims … .

Accepted as true for purposes of these CPLR 3211 motions, REBNY’s assertion that its member hotel owners are currently negatively affected by the moratorium is sufficient to establish standing in the plenary action and in the article 78 proceeding under ULURP [the City Charter’s Uniform Land Use Review Process] … . * * *

REBNY’s claimed environmental harm is nothing more than economic harm (i.e., the reduction in property values, the loss of business opportunities and the added expense of applying for a waiver under Local Law 50). REBNY’s own filings reflect that the organization’s constitution mentions the environment only once, and only insofar as the environment relates to economic impact. The affidavit by REBNY’s president does not salvage REBNY’s standing argument. The president claims that “SEQRA is a concern” for all REBNY members in “proximity” to the hotels due to potential impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, waste disposal and demand for public services. This argument … fails to establish injury separate and apart from injury to the general public … . Matter of Real Estate Bd. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05906, First Dept 8-23-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STANDING, THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT)).STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/HOTELS  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))

IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff, who owns shares in a closely held corporation and sued the corporation seeking common law dissolution, was entitled payment by the corporation of expenses associated with plaintiff's defense of counterclaims made by the corporation. In addition plaintiff's cross motion to restrain the defendants from using the corporation's funds for defense of the common law dissolution action should have been granted:

The counterclaims are asserted against plaintiff “by reason of the fact that he . . . was a director or officer of the [C]orporation,” and Business Corporation Law § 722 (a) provides that he may be indemnified by the Corporation for his “reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees actually and necessarily incurred as a result of such action or proceeding . . . if [he] acted, in good faith, for a purpose which he reasonably believed to be in . . . the best interests of the [C]orporation.” That is so even though the counterclaims are brought, in part, by the Corporation itself … . Pursuant to section 724 (c), where, as here, “indemnification is sought by judicial action, the court may allow a person such reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, during the pendency of the litigation as are necessary in connection with his [or her] defense therein, if the court shall find that the [person seeking indemnification] has by his [or her] pleadings or during the course of the litigation raised genuine issues of fact or law.” “With respect to the advancement of fees, courts have consistently observed that the governing standard is not a stringent one' “… . All plaintiff was required to do was raise a genuine issue of fact or law …, and we conclude that he has done so. We thus modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of reasonable attorneys ' fees and litigation expenses that should be reimbursed to plaintiff, subject to repayment in the event defendants are successful on their counterclaims … . …

Here, as in judicial dissolution proceedings, “the corporation appears as a nominal party and the proceeding amounts to a dispute between the shareholders”… . We thus conclude that “corporate funds may not be used in payment of counsel fees for the individual shareholders” regardless of the fact that this is a common-law dissolution proceeding … . Feldmeier v Feldmeier Equip., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05893, Fourth Dept 8-22-18

CORPORATION LAW (IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION'S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/DISSOLUTION, COMMON LAW (CORPORATION LAW, IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION'S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff shareholder in a cooperative could not bring a “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action against individual members of the cooperative board. Plaintiff alleged her cooperative apartment was damaged by water from a greenhouse above the apartment. The first department found that that was no corporate tort for which individual members of the board could be liable:

It is well-settled that a breach of fiduciary duty claim does not lie against individual cooperative board members where there is no allegation of “individual wrongdoing by the members . . . separate and apart from their collective actions taken on behalf of the” cooperative … .  Here, the complaint does not allege that any of the individual board members committed an independent wrong that was distinct from the actions taken as a board collectively. Thus, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is not viable. …

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, this result is entirely consistent with Fletcher v Dakota, Inc. (99 AD3d 43 [1st Dept 2012]). In Fletcher, we concluded that “although participation in a breach of contract will typically not give rise to individual director liability, the participation of an individual director in a corporation’s tort is sufficient to give rise to individual liability” (id. at 47). Thus, we declined to dismiss claims against a cooperative board director who was alleged to have participated in the cooperative’s violation of the State and City Human Rights Laws.

Here, in contrast, there is no viable corporate tort alleging breach of fiduciary duty, because a corporation owes no fiduciary duty to its shareholders … . Thus, in the absence of a corporate tort in which the individual board members could have participated, the breach of fiduciary duty claim as against them was properly dismissed. Indeed, Fletcher made this very point by dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action against an individual board director, while at the same time sustaining Human Rights Law claims against him. Hersh v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05522, First Dept 7-26-18

FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (COOPERATIVES, NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (COOPERATIVES,  NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COOPERATIVES, CORPORATE TORT,  NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FOREIGN CORPORATION MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR CONTAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, THE CORPORATION HAS NO PRESENT CONTACTS IN NEW YORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that New York does not have jurisdiction over a foreign corporation which might be liable for contamination of plaintiffs’ property, but which has no present contacts in New York. Successor liability is a tort concept which cannot be used to gain jurisdiction over the successor corporation:

It is undisputed that defendant, a foreign corporation with no present contacts in this State, is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under either CPLR 301 or 302 (a) (see Semenetz v Sherling & Walden, Inc., 21 AD3d 1138, 1139-1140 [3d Dept 2005], affd on other grounds 7 NY3d 194 [2006]). Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend that personal jurisdiction exists over defendant because it ostensibly bears successor liability for a predecessor corporation that was itself subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. The 3rd Department, however, expressly rejected that jurisdictional theory in Semenetz (see id. at 1140). The “successor liability rule[s],” wrote the Semenetz court, “deal with the concept of tort liability, not jurisdiction. When and if [successor liability] is found applicable, the corporate successor would be subject to liability for the torts of its predecessor in any forum having in personam jurisdiction over the successor, but the [successor liability rules] do not and cannot confer such jurisdiction over the successor in the first instance” (id.) BRG Corp. v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05425, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

 

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