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

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 291 (Cohen v. Sage Systems, Inc.) 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

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

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]*292corporation, 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]*292corporation, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 291, 546 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-sage-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack