Gilligan v. Briar Hill Lanes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilligan v. Briar Hill Lanes, Inc.

250 A.D.2d 809, 673 N.Y.S.2d 711

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 809 (Gilligan v. Briar Hill Lanes, Inc.) 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

Gilligan v. Briar Hill Lanes, Inc., 250 A.D.2d 809, 673 N.Y.S.2d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the surplus from the liquidation of corporate stock pledged as collateral and a related action for, inter alia, an accounting, the defendant in Action No. 2 appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.H.O.), entered January 6, 1997, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $38,400.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial court properly concluded that UCC 9-505 (2) was applicable to this case. Pursuant to UCC 9-505 (2), a secured party must provide written notice to the defaulting debtor of an election to retain collateral in satisfaction of the debt. The appellant failed to provide the requisite written notice and therefore did not become the legal owner of the plaintiffs stock, which was pledged as collateral for a loan (see, MTI Sys. Corp. v Hatziemanuel, 151 AD2d 649, 650; Matter of Szelega v Farega Realty [810]*810Corp., 97 AD2d 874, 875). Since the plaintiff retained ownership of the stock (see, Matter of Szelega v Farega Realty Corp., supra), the plaintiff, and not the appellant, was entitled to the surplus which remained after satisfaction of the debt when the corporate assets were sold and the corporation was dissolved.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover the surplus from the liquidation of corporate stock pledged as collateral and a related action for, inter alia, an accounting, the defendant in Action No. 2 appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.H.O.), entered January 6, 1997, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $38,400.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial court properly concluded that UCC 9-505 (2) was applicable to this case. Pursuant to UCC 9-505 (2), a secured party must provide written notice to the defaulting debtor of an election to retain collateral in satisfaction of the debt. The appellant failed to provide the requisite written notice and therefore did not become the legal owner of the plaintiffs stock, which was pledged as collateral for a loan (see, MTI Sys. Corp. v Hatziemanuel, 151 AD2d 649, 650; Matter of Szelega v Farega Realty [810]*810Corp., 97 AD2d 874, 875). Since the plaintiff retained ownership of the stock (see, Matter of Szelega v Farega Realty Corp., supra), the plaintiff, and not the appellant, was entitled to the surplus which remained after satisfaction of the debt when the corporate assets were sold and the corporation was dissolved.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 809, 673 N.Y.S.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilligan-v-briar-hill-lanes-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack