In re Laufer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Laufer

221 A.D.2d 342, 633 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11178

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 342 (In re Laufer) 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 Laufer, 221 A.D.2d 342, 633 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to set aside an election of directors of a cooperative apartment building, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated July 5, 1994, which denied the petition and granted that branch of the respondent’s cross motion which was to confirm the results of the election.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that even if the petitioner had been permitted to vote all of the shares he allegedly was entitled to vote, the result would have been the same. Thus, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion under Business Corporation Law § 619 in denying the petition to set aside the election. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to set aside an election of directors of a cooperative apartment building, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated July 5, 1994, which denied the petition and granted that branch of the respondent’s cross motion which was to confirm the results of the election.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that even if the petitioner had been permitted to vote all of the shares he allegedly was entitled to vote, the result would have been the same. Thus, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion under Business Corporation Law § 619 in denying the petition to set aside the election. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 342, 633 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-laufer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack