Cohen v. Sage Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Sage Systems, Inc.

154 A.D.2d 291, 546 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13418

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 26, 1989·Published

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered February 14, 1989, which denied respondents’ motion for leave to amend their answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for the reasons stated by Altman, J.

In this action, petitioner seeks dissolution of respondent [292] corporation, Sage Systems, Inc. Petitioner alleged ownership of 20% of the stock of Sage, the proportion of ownership required to institute a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a. Several months after admitting that petitioner owned 20% of the stock, respondents moved for leave to amend their answer so as to deny such ownership.

In considering a motion for leave to amend the pleadings, the court has discretion to consider the merits of the proposed amendment. (East Asiatic Co. v Corash, 34 AD2d 432.) The record does not support respondents’ proposed amendment to their answer which disputes petitioner’s 20% ownership of the stock of Sage. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by Trial Term in denying the motion to amend. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered February 14, 1989, which denied respondents’ motion for leave to amend their answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for the reasons stated by Altman, J.

In this action, petitioner seeks dissolution of respondent [292] corporation, Sage Systems, Inc. Petitioner alleged ownership of 20% of the stock of Sage, the proportion of ownership required to institute a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a. Several months after admitting that petitioner owned 20% of the stock, respondents moved for leave to amend their answer so as to deny such ownership.

In considering a motion for leave to amend the pleadings, the court has discretion to consider the merits of the proposed amendment. (East Asiatic Co. v Corash, 34 AD2d 432.) The record does not support respondents’ proposed amendment to their answer which disputes petitioner’s 20% ownership of the stock of Sage. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by Trial Term in denying the motion to amend. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cohen v. Sage Systems, Inc., 154 A.D.2d 291, 546 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

154 A.D.2d 291 (Cohen v. Sage Systems, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related