Goldman v. Icaro Media Group, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 33610(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedOctober 10, 2024
DocketIndex No. 153193/2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 33610(U) (Goldman v. Icaro Media Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goldman v. Icaro Media Group, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 33610(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

Goldman v Icaro Media Group, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 33610(U) October 10, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153193/2024 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 153193/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/10/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 153193/2024 LLOYD GOLDMAN, MOTION DATE 04/04/2024 Petitioner, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- ICARO MEDIA GROUP, INC.,PAUL FELLER DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) .

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner Lloyd Goldman, a shareholder in respondent

corporation, ICARO Media Group (“ICARO”) seeks an order compelling respondent to provide

him with requested books and records for his inspection. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to a

right of inspection through both statutory rights and New York common law. Respondents

oppose arguing that the court must apply Nevada law, since that is where ICARO was

incorporated, and thus the statutes petitioner cites are not applicable to ICARO. Respondents

further argue that even if New York law does apply the statutes cited by petitioner do not allow

him to inspect the records he seeks.

DISCUSSION

Internal Affairs Doctrine

Petitioner argues that pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1315 (BCL), he is entitled

to receive certain records from ICARO. BCL § 1315(a) states:

153193/2024 GOLDMAN, LLOYD vs. ICARO MEDIA GROUP, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 7 Motion No. 001

1 of 7 [* 1] INDEX NO. 153193/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/10/2024

Any resident of this state who shall have been a shareholder of record of a foreign corporation doing business in this state upon at least five days' written demand may require such foreign corporation to produce a record of its shareholders setting forth the names and addresses of all shareholders, the number and class of shares held by each and the dates when they respectively became the owners of record thereof and shall have the right to examine in person or by agent or attorney at the office of the foreign corporation in this state or at the office of its transfer agent or registrar in this state or at such other place in the county in this state in which the foreign corporation is doing business as may be designated by the foreign corporation, during the usual business hours, the record of shareholders or an exact copy thereof certified as correct by the corporate officer or agent responsible for keeping or producing such record and to make extracts therefrom. Resident holders of voting trust certificates representing shares of the foreign corporation shall for the purpose of this section be regarded as shareholders. Any such agent or authority shall be authorized in a writing that satisfies the requirements of a writing under paragraph (b) of section 609 (proxies). A corporation requested to provide information pursuant to this paragraph shall make available such information in the format in which such information is maintained by the corporation and shall not be required to provide such information in any other format. If a request made pursuant to this paragragh1 includes a request to furnish information regarding beneficial owners, the corporation shall make available such information in its possession regarding beneficial owners as is provided to the corporation by a registered broker or dealer or a bank, association or other entity that exercises fiduciary powers in connection with the forwarding of information to such owners. The corporation shall not be required to obtain information about beneficial owners not in its possession.

Respondents first argue that because ICARO is a corporation incorporated in Nevada,

New York law does not apply under the internal affairs doctrine. “With respect to matters arising

from the internal affairs of a corporation, as in this case, including the relationships between

directors and shareholders, [the Court of Appeals] has noted that the general approach is to apply

the law of the state of incorporation” (Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2024 NY Slip

Op 02841 at *5 [Ct App May 23, 2024]). “[T]he doctrine serves the vital need for a single,

153193/2024 GOLDMAN, LLOYD vs. ICARO MEDIA GROUP, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 7 Motion No. 001

2 of 7 [* 2] INDEX NO. 153193/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/10/2024

constant, and equal law to avoid the fragmentation of continuing, interdependent internal

relationships” (id.).

However, “[a]ccess to stockholder lists is a recognized exception to the internal affairs

doctrine as a matter of corporate law and conflicts of law, and it should take a substantial threat

of conflict adversely affecting interstate commerce before a court invalidates a state's assertion of

this traditional authority” (Sadler v NCR Corp., 928 F2d 48, 55 [2d Cir 1991]). In affirming BCL

§ 1315’s constitutionality the Second Circuit ruled that “Section 1315 creates no discrimination

against interstate commerce [because] it is adequately justified by the legitimate local interest in

protecting local shareholders (id. at 55-56). Further, “[t]he use of a state's courts to reach a

corporation doing business within the state for the purpose of availing oneself of a state statutory

remedy or pursuing a common-law tort action does not implicate impermissible regulation”

(Airtran New York, LLC v Midwest Air Group, Inc., 46 AD3d 208, 215 [1st Dept 2007]). “As [a]

New York resident shareholder[] in respondent foreign corporation[], petitioner[] [is] entitled to

inspect the corporation[’s] shareholder lists for the avowed purpose of soliciting sales of stock

from other shareholders” (Madison Liquidity Inv'rs 103 LLC v H. Augustus Carey, 291 AD2d

362, 362 [1st Dept 2002]). Therefore, petitioner may rely on New York law for the limited

purpose of enforcing BCL § 1315.

BCL § 1315

Petitioner argues that notwithstanding BCL § 1315’s text only allowing for access to a

record of shareholder information, that he is entitled to inspect the wider array of records

enumerated in BCL § 624. BCL § 624 provides in relevant part that:

(a) Each corporation shall keep correct and complete books and records of account and shall keep minutes of the proceedings of its shareholders, board and executive committee, if any, and shall keep at the office of the corporation in this state or at the office of its

153193/2024 GOLDMAN, LLOYD vs. ICARO MEDIA GROUP, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 7 Motion No. 001

3 of 7 [* 3] INDEX NO. 153193/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/10/2024

transfer agent or registrar in this state, a record containing the names and addresses of all shareholders, the number and class of shares held by each and the dates when they respectively became the owners of record thereof.

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

Related

Crane Co. v. Anaconda Co.
346 N.E.2d 507 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
AirTran New York, LLC v. Midwest Air Group, Inc.
46 A.D.3d 208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Madison Liquidity Investors 103 LLC v. Carey
291 A.D.2d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Eccles v. Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC
42 N.Y.3d 321 (New York Court of Appeals, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 33610(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-icaro-media-group-inc-nysupctnewyork-2024.