Estate of Mandelbaum v. Five Ivy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Mandelbaum v. Five Ivy Corp.

72 A.D.3d 574, 898 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedApril 27, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 574 (Estate of Mandelbaum v. Five Ivy Corp.) 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

Estate of Mandelbaum v. Five Ivy Corp., 72 A.D.3d 574, 898 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 23, 2009, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 623 to fix the fair value of shares, inter alia, denied petitioner’s motion to compel production of respondent’s subchapter S election documents for 2008 or 2009 and tax returns for 2008 and 2009, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied production of information regarding events subsequent to the undisputed valuation date of December 27, 2007. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the statute’s requirement that the court consider “all other relevant factors” in fixing value does not modify its time frame for [575]*575fixing value “as of the close of business on the day prior to the shareholders’ authorization date” (Business Corporation Law § 623 [h] [4]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 23, 2009, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 623 to fix the fair value of shares, inter alia, denied petitioner’s motion to compel production of respondent’s subchapter S election documents for 2008 or 2009 and tax returns for 2008 and 2009, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied production of information regarding events subsequent to the undisputed valuation date of December 27, 2007. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the statute’s requirement that the court consider “all other relevant factors” in fixing value does not modify its time frame for [575]*575fixing value “as of the close of business on the day prior to the shareholders’ authorization date” (Business Corporation Law § 623 [h] [4]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 574, 898 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-mandelbaum-v-five-ivy-corp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack