Fancy Windows & Doors Mfg. Corp. v. Fei Wu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fancy Windows & Doors Mfg. Corp. v. Fei Wu

244 A.D.2d 484, 664 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11579

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 484 (Fancy Windows & Doors Mfg. Corp. v. Fei Wu) 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

Fancy Windows & Doors Mfg. Corp. v. Fei Wu, 244 A.D.2d 484, 664 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for judicial dissolution of a closely-held corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Kramer, J.), dated June 28, 1996, which, without a hearing, Inter alia, ordered dissolution.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith.

“Section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law, enacted in 1979, provides minority shareholders in close corporations with protection from oppressive conduct by majority interests” (Matter of Seagroatt Floral Co. [Riccardi], 78 NY2d 439, 444). The appropriateness of an order of dissolution pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a “is in every case vested in the sound discretion of the court considering the application” (Matter of Kemp & Beatley, 64 NY2d 63, 73). In the present case, in view of the parties’ conflicting assertions, the Supreme Court should have held an evidentiary hearing (see, Matter of Kemp & Beatley, supra, at 73-75; Matter of Rosen [Hofteller Enters.], 102 AD2d 855; Matter of Kournianos [H.M.G., Inc.], [485]*485175 AD2d 129; see also, LaBarbera v D’Amico, 240 AD2d 640; Matter of Singer v Evergreen Decorators, 205 AD2d 694). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for judicial dissolution of a closely-held corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Kramer, J.), dated June 28, 1996, which, without a hearing, Inter alia, ordered dissolution.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith.

“Section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law, enacted in 1979, provides minority shareholders in close corporations with protection from oppressive conduct by majority interests” (Matter of Seagroatt Floral Co. [Riccardi], 78 NY2d 439, 444). The appropriateness of an order of dissolution pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a “is in every case vested in the sound discretion of the court considering the application” (Matter of Kemp & Beatley, 64 NY2d 63, 73). In the present case, in view of the parties’ conflicting assertions, the Supreme Court should have held an evidentiary hearing (see, Matter of Kemp & Beatley, supra, at 73-75; Matter of Rosen [Hofteller Enters.], 102 AD2d 855; Matter of Kournianos [H.M.G., Inc.], [485]*485175 AD2d 129; see also, LaBarbera v D’Amico, 240 AD2d 640; Matter of Singer v Evergreen Decorators, 205 AD2d 694). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 484, 664 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fancy-windows-doors-mfg-corp-v-fei-wu-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack