Gottfried v. Gottfried Baking Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gottfried v. Gottfried Baking Co.

1 A.D.2d 994, 151 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5508

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

DecidedMay 11, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 994 (Gottfried v. Gottfried Baking Co.) 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

Gottfried v. Gottfried Baking Co., 1 A.D.2d 994, 151 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The proposed sale of the Hanscom Stores and their fixtures comes within the requirements of sections 20 and 45 of the Stock Corporation Law. Consequently, the contracts of sale made before the May 3d meeting of stockholders were void. When, however, the May 3d meeting was held, the stockholders were in a position to and did authorize a sale of the assets of the business substantially in accordance with the contracts already executed. This did not constitute a ratification or validation mme pro tunc of the previously made contracts, but it did authorize, from May 3d on, the performance of any contracts then adopted.

In so holding, we do not minimize the importance of compliance with the mandate of the statute in any ease to which it is applicable. Presenting stockholders with the opportunity of ratification of a fait accompli is not the same as giving them the opportunity of advance consideration and determination. We have no hesitancy in saying, therefore, that officers and directors undertaking to act without proper approval are answerable for any damages resulting to the corporation from unauthorized action. The extent to which such liability may be removed or mitigated by subsequent stockholders’ approval need not [995]*995now be considered. Of course, we must be mindful of the fact in the case of this closely held corporation that the position of the stockholders was known and fixed throughout the period here involved and that fact undoubtedly bears upon any issue of prejudice to the corporation or stockholders by reason of the course pursued.

In the view we take of the matter there is no warrant for enjoining the sale. The orders should be affirmed, without costs.

Peck, P. J., Botein, Frank and Valente, JJ., concur. [See 2 A D 2d 664.]

Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The proposed sale of the Hanscom Stores and their fixtures comes within the requirements of sections 20 and 45 of the Stock Corporation Law. Consequently, the contracts of sale made before the May 3d meeting of stockholders were void. When, however, the May 3d meeting was held, the stockholders were in a position to and did authorize a sale of the assets of the business substantially in accordance with the contracts already executed. This did not constitute a ratification or validation mme pro tunc of the previously made contracts, but it did authorize, from May 3d on, the performance of any contracts then adopted.

In so holding, we do not minimize the importance of compliance with the mandate of the statute in any ease to which it is applicable. Presenting stockholders with the opportunity of ratification of a fait accompli is not the same as giving them the opportunity of advance consideration and determination. We have no hesitancy in saying, therefore, that officers and directors undertaking to act without proper approval are answerable for any damages resulting to the corporation from unauthorized action. The extent to which such liability may be removed or mitigated by subsequent stockholders’ approval need not [995]*995now be considered. Of course, we must be mindful of the fact in the case of this closely held corporation that the position of the stockholders was known and fixed throughout the period here involved and that fact undoubtedly bears upon any issue of prejudice to the corporation or stockholders by reason of the course pursued.

In the view we take of the matter there is no warrant for enjoining the sale. The orders should be affirmed, without costs.

Peck, P. J., Botein, Frank and Valente, JJ., concur. [See 2 A D 2d 664.]

Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 994, 151 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gottfried-v-gottfried-baking-co-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack