Family M. Foundation Ltd. v. Manus

71 A.D.3d 598, 899 N.Y.S.2d 154
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 30, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 598 (Family M. Foundation Ltd. v. Manus) 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
Family M. Foundation Ltd. v. Manus, 71 A.D.3d 598, 899 N.Y.S.2d 154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered March 20, 2009, which, in an action to recover a loan, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for relief from a prior order, same court and Justice, entered July 1, 2004, which had, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the motion court had already explained in granting plaintiffs motion to enforce the stipulation of settlement, the action is properly maintained by plaintiff corporation under the authority of its president and sole director, Elizabeth (Libby) Manus, and it is “inconsequential” whether she is the owner of all of plaintiffs shares, as she represented on plaintiffs motion to enforce the stipulation, or one third of its shares, as defendant claimed in opposing such motion, or none of its shares, as [599]*599defendant presently claims on the basis of purportedly new evidence. A corporation’s president has presumptive authority to act on behalf of the corporation, including the authority to prosecute and defend lawsuits (see West View Hills v Lizau Realty Corp., 6 NY2d 344 [1959]; Executive Leasing Co. v Leder, 191 AD2d 199, 200 [1993]). This is not a case where one 50% shareholder seeks to assert a claim on behalf of the corporation against another 50% shareholder who possesses an equal degree of control, or where the president is acting in contravention of a board of director’s vote (see e.g. Executive Leasing). Defendant’s new claims that the corporation was dissolved by operation of the laws of the Cayman Islands, and that Libby’s status as plaintiffs president has never been conceded and is fairly disputable, are either untimely raised (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]), speculative, based on hearsay, or otherwise insufficiently substantiated to warrant relief from the July 1, 2004 order. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Valentini v. 326 E. 30th St. Owners, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 32894(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Manus v. Flamm
111 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Fernandez v. Hencke
93 A.D.3d 440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.3d 598, 899 N.Y.S.2d 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/family-m-foundation-ltd-v-manus-nyappdiv-2010.