Aini v. Garau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aini v. Garau

244 A.D.2d 442, 664 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11609

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 442 (Aini v. Garau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aini v. Garau, 244 A.D.2d 442, 664 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Emile Garau, Ismael Jedouance, CCI, and REC appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 18, 1996, which, inter alia, (1) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619 to set aside the election of directors pursuant to a shareholders meeting of the defendants Ultraclear Beauty Products, Inc., and Topiclear Beauty Products, Inc., and (2) directed that the plaintiff Jacob Aini may vote 662/s of the shares of the defendants Ultraclear Beauty Products, Inc., and Topiclear Beauty Products, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Since limitations on the right to vote were not mentioned in the certificate of incorporation, each of the shareholders had an equal voting share in Topiclear Beauty Products, Inc., and Ultraclear Beauty Products, Inc. (see, Business Corporation Law § 612 [a]). However, since the record is insufficient to make a determination as to whether the defendant Simon Mamane sold his shares to Societe Internationale de Cosmetiques, a French corporation, or to the plaintiff Jacob Aini, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing and, upon completion, a new determination of the plaintiffs’ cross motion. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Emile Garau, Ismael Jedouance, CCI, and REC appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 18, 1996, which, inter alia, (1) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619 to set aside the election of directors pursuant to a shareholders meeting of the defendants Ultraclear Beauty Products, Inc., and Topiclear Beauty Products, Inc., and (2) directed that the plaintiff Jacob Aini may vote 662/s of the shares of the defendants Ultraclear Beauty Products, Inc., and Topiclear Beauty Products, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Since limitations on the right to vote were not mentioned in the certificate of incorporation, each of the shareholders had an equal voting share in Topiclear Beauty Products, Inc., and Ultraclear Beauty Products, Inc. (see, Business Corporation Law § 612 [a]). However, since the record is insufficient to make a determination as to whether the defendant Simon Mamane sold his shares to Societe Internationale de Cosmetiques, a French corporation, or to the plaintiff Jacob Aini, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing and, upon completion, a new determination of the plaintiffs’ cross motion. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 442, 664 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aini-v-garau-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack