D'Antonio v. Hiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Antonio v. Hiller

41 A.D.3d 240, 836 N.Y.S.2d 872

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

DecidedJune 19, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 240 (D'Antonio v. Hiller) 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

D'Antonio v. Hiller, 41 A.D.3d 240, 836 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 22, 2006, which, in an action for breach of a shareholders agreement and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant employees/ shareholders/directors’ termination of plaintiff employee/ shareholder’s employment with the corporation and demand to buy back his shares, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Documentary evidence establishes that defendants’ termina[241]*241tion of plaintiff’s employment and demand to buy back his shares was in accordance with the controlling provisions of the shareholders agreement and bylaws, and requires that the complaint be dismissed (see Gallagher v Lambert, 74 NY2d 562, 567 [1989]; Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d 183, 189 [1989]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 22, 2006, which, in an action for breach of a shareholders agreement and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant employees/ shareholders/directors’ termination of plaintiff employee/ shareholder’s employment with the corporation and demand to buy back his shares, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Documentary evidence establishes that defendants’ termina[241]*241tion of plaintiff’s employment and demand to buy back his shares was in accordance with the controlling provisions of the shareholders agreement and bylaws, and requires that the complaint be dismissed (see Gallagher v Lambert, 74 NY2d 562, 567 [1989]; Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d 183, 189 [1989]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 240, 836 N.Y.S.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dantonio-v-hiller-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack