Brittania 54 Hotel Corp. v. Freid

251 A.D.2d 49, 673 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6417
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 4, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 49 (Brittania 54 Hotel Corp. v. Freid) 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
Brittania 54 Hotel Corp. v. Freid, 251 A.D.2d 49, 673 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 13, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for an order pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 724 award[50]*50ing him, during the pendency of the litigation, such reasonable expenses as are necessary in connection with his defense of the action, including attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Section 722 of the Business Corporation Law permits a corporation to indemnify a past or present officer for his reasonable litigation expenses when he is sued by reason of the fact that he was an officer, i.e., for his actions taken as an officer. When a corporation declines to afford indemnification pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 722, the officer may apply to the court, which may direct that such payments be made “if the court shall find that the defendant has by his pleadings or during the course of the litigation raised genuine issues of fact or law” (Business Corporation Law § 724 [c]).

Defendant’s submissions were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding his assertion that he held the office of president or chief executive officer in plaintiff corporation, in light of compelling documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff establishing that defendant never was a corporate officer. In any event, the declaratory judgment action commenced against defendant was not brought “by reason of’ the fact that he was an officer, or for any action allegedly taken by him as an officer. Accordingly, he did not qualify for a discretionary allowance by the court for his reasonable expenses in defending the action. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Feldmeier v. Feldmeier Equip., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 5893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
M&M Country Store, Inc. v. Kelly
2018 NY Slip Op 1376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Booth Oil Site Administrative Group v. Safety-Kleen Corp.
137 F. Supp. 2d 228 (W.D. New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 49, 673 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brittania-54-hotel-corp-v-freid-nyappdiv-1998.