EFCO-FA Development Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

EFCO-FA Development Corp. v. State

266 A.D.2d 338, 698 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11559

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

DocketClaim No. 93054

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 338 (EFCO-FA Development Corp. v. State) 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

EFCO-FA Development Corp. v. State, 266 A.D.2d 338, 698 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated January 6, 1999, which denied its motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (3) or (4).

[339]*339Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant sought a trial preference on the ground that its President, who was also a 35% stockholder, was 74 years of age at the time of the application, and in poor health (see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3], [4]). Contrary to the claimant’s contention, its President, as a corporate officer and partial stockholder, does not possess a cognizable cause of action (see, Cooney Bros. v State of New York, 24 NY2d 387, 392; cf., Borenstein v City of New York, 248 AD2d 425; Milton Point Realty Co. v Haas, 91 AD2d 678; Bobowski v Toomey, 108 Misc 2d 1061) and is not the real party in interest (see, Chalmers v Eaton Corp., 71 AD2d 721; cf., Campbell v Kelly, 42 AD2d 601). Therefore, the claimant’s application for a trial preference due to the age and health of its officer was properly denied.

Furthermore, the claimant’s request for a trial preference on the ground of financial hardship was also properly denied since there was no proof submitted as to the actual fiscal condition of the corporation (see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; La Porta v Fretto Enters., 100 AD2d 713). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated January 6, 1999, which denied its motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (3) or (4).

[339]*339Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant sought a trial preference on the ground that its President, who was also a 35% stockholder, was 74 years of age at the time of the application, and in poor health (see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3], [4]). Contrary to the claimant’s contention, its President, as a corporate officer and partial stockholder, does not possess a cognizable cause of action (see, Cooney Bros. v State of New York, 24 NY2d 387, 392; cf., Borenstein v City of New York, 248 AD2d 425; Milton Point Realty Co. v Haas, 91 AD2d 678; Bobowski v Toomey, 108 Misc 2d 1061) and is not the real party in interest (see, Chalmers v Eaton Corp., 71 AD2d 721; cf., Campbell v Kelly, 42 AD2d 601). Therefore, the claimant’s application for a trial preference due to the age and health of its officer was properly denied.

Furthermore, the claimant’s request for a trial preference on the ground of financial hardship was also properly denied since there was no proof submitted as to the actual fiscal condition of the corporation (see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; La Porta v Fretto Enters., 100 AD2d 713). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 338, 698 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/efco-fa-development-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack