Golub v. Estate of Tesler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Golub v. Estate of Tesler

251 A.D.2d 46, 672 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6423

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

DecidedJune 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 46 (Golub v. Estate of Tesler) 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

Golub v. Estate of Tesler, 251 A.D.2d 46, 672 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiff’s brief, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Accepting the allegations of the complaint, we agree with the IAS Court that defendants’ refinancing of the corporation’s mortgage without plaintiffs consent, in breach of the parties’ shareholders’ agreement requiring such consent, if a wrong, was one committed against the corporation that plaintiff may not assert in his individual capacity. Plaintiffs alleged loss, namely, reduced equity in the property due to the stretching out of repayment of principal, is the corporation’s loss, if any, which is responsible under the shareholders’ agreement for payment of the mortgage (see, Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiff’s brief, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Accepting the allegations of the complaint, we agree with the IAS Court that defendants’ refinancing of the corporation’s mortgage without plaintiffs consent, in breach of the parties’ shareholders’ agreement requiring such consent, if a wrong, was one committed against the corporation that plaintiff may not assert in his individual capacity. Plaintiffs alleged loss, namely, reduced equity in the property due to the stretching out of repayment of principal, is the corporation’s loss, if any, which is responsible under the shareholders’ agreement for payment of the mortgage (see, Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 46, 672 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golub-v-estate-of-tesler-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack