Hall v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall v. King

265 A.D.2d 244, 697 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10872

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 244 (Hall v. King) 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

Hall v. King, 265 A.D.2d 244, 697 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered August 4, 1998, which, inter alia, granted, in part, defendants’ motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and valued plaintiffs 45% interest in King’s Antiques Corporation at $1,153,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court’s valuation is supported by the record, and competing interpretations of fact or of the credibility of the evidence are insufficient to warrant reversal (see, Matter of Cohen v Four Way Features, 240 AD2d 225). Under the facts of [245]*245this case, the use of the net asset method to value the subject ongoing wholesale antique reproduction business was appropriate (see, Matter of Friedman v Beway Realty Corp., 87 NY2d 161, 165), as was application of a 25% lack of marketability discount to all of the corporate assets in light of the absence of a noncompete clause between the parties (see, e.g., Matter of Cohen v Four Way Features, supra, affg 168 Misc 2d 91; Lehman v Piontkowski, 203 AD2d 257, lv dismissed 84 NY2d 890). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered August 4, 1998, which, inter alia, granted, in part, defendants’ motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and valued plaintiffs 45% interest in King’s Antiques Corporation at $1,153,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court’s valuation is supported by the record, and competing interpretations of fact or of the credibility of the evidence are insufficient to warrant reversal (see, Matter of Cohen v Four Way Features, 240 AD2d 225). Under the facts of [245]*245this case, the use of the net asset method to value the subject ongoing wholesale antique reproduction business was appropriate (see, Matter of Friedman v Beway Realty Corp., 87 NY2d 161, 165), as was application of a 25% lack of marketability discount to all of the corporate assets in light of the absence of a noncompete clause between the parties (see, e.g., Matter of Cohen v Four Way Features, supra, affg 168 Misc 2d 91; Lehman v Piontkowski, 203 AD2d 257, lv dismissed 84 NY2d 890). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 244, 697 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-king-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack