In re Musano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Musano

302 A.D.2d 302, 754 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1709

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered April 5, 2002, which granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer, dated February 5, 2001, finding, after a hearing, that petitioner has standing to commence and maintain the instant proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The finding of the Judicial Hearing Officer that petitioner owns at least 20% of the shares of respondent corporation and thus has standing to bring the instant proceeding, largely dependent upon credibility determinations to which deference is due (see Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705) and which we perceive no basis to disturb, was amply supported by the record and, accordingly, properly confirmed [303]*303(see Sylvan Lawrence Co. v 180 Realty Co., 268 AD2d 238; United States Trust Co. v Olsen, 194 AD2d 481, 482).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered April 5, 2002, which granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer, dated February 5, 2001, finding, after a hearing, that petitioner has standing to commence and maintain the instant proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The finding of the Judicial Hearing Officer that petitioner owns at least 20% of the shares of respondent corporation and thus has standing to bring the instant proceeding, largely dependent upon credibility determinations to which deference is due (see Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705) and which we perceive no basis to disturb, was amply supported by the record and, accordingly, properly confirmed [303]*303(see Sylvan Lawrence Co. v 180 Realty Co., 268 AD2d 238; United States Trust Co. v Olsen, 194 AD2d 481, 482).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

In re Musano, 302 A.D.2d 302, 754 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

302 A.D.2d 302 (In re Musano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related