In re Duffy

97 A.D.2d 694, 468 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20389
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 1, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 694 (In re Duffy) 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
In re Duffy, 97 A.D.2d 694, 468 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J.), entered April 12,1983, which directed the valuation of stock, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, without costs. Duffy, Inc., is a New York corporation which designs and plans interior commercial office space. This business has a nationwide clientele and is prosperous. Two brothers, Robert J. and J. O’Neill Duffy, each own 50% of the corporate shares. In 1982 a long-standing dispute between the brothers over the operation of the business resulted in Robert J. Duffy (Robert) petitioning the court, pursuant to section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law, for a judicial dissolution of the corporation and the temporary appointment of a receiver. J. O’Neill Duffy (O’Neill) served and filed an answer in opposition. Special Term ordered a stock valuation, pursuant to section 1118 of the Business Corporation Law. O’Neill appealed. We hold that Special Term erred. A stock valuation can be directed when either the proceeding is instituted under section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law; or, an election has been made under subdivision (b) of section 1118 of the Business Corporation Law by a shareholder to buy out the other shareholders; or, an application has been made to stay the dissolution proceeding. Our review of the record in this case reveals that none of these factors is present herein, since Robert instituted his proceeding under section 1104, not under section 1104-a; neither Robert nor O’Neill has made an election to buy the other shareholder out; and, no one has moved to stay dissolution. During the pendency of this appeal, counsel for petitioner-respondent Robert has advised this court that Robert “does not oppose reversal of” Special Term’s order. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Asch and Bloom, JJ.

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

Related

In re Oak Street Management, Inc.
307 A.D.2d 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Sakow
297 A.D.2d 229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Dissolution of Field, Rich & Associates, Inc.
134 Misc. 2d 216 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
In re the Dissolution of Public Relations Aids, Inc.
109 A.D.2d 502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A.D.2d 694, 468 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-duffy-nyappdiv-1983.