In re the Dissolution of Hospital Diagnostic Equipment Corp.

205 A.D.2d 459, 613 N.Y.S.2d 884
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 459 (In re the Dissolution of Hospital Diagnostic Equipment Corp.) 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 the Dissolution of Hospital Diagnostic Equipment Corp., 205 A.D.2d 459, 613 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about April 16, 1993, which in a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 to dissolve the subject corporation, and upon motions by respondents to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and by the Attorney-General for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissed the petition on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the matter should be litigated in Delaware, where the subject corporation and both the corporate petitioner and corporate respondent are all Delaware corporations, the corporate petitioner’s principal and predecessor in interest are both residents of Missouri, the individual respondents, who are also the corporate respondent’s principals, are residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, and the only apparent New York connections are the subject corporation’s maintenance of an office here and the choice of New York law to govern the shareholders’ agreement that appears to be at the core of the dispute (see, Temple v Temple, 97 AD2d 757). We have considered the litigants’ remaining arguments, including the Attorney-General’s that the courts of New York lack subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve a foreign corporation, and find them to be without merit (see, Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88, 90-92). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Raharney Capital, LLC v. Capital Stack LLC
138 A.D.3d 83 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Rimawi v. Atkins
42 A.D.3d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Valencia Bartels de Nunez v. Valencia Bartels
684 So. 2d 1008 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 A.D.2d 459, 613 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-dissolution-of-hospital-diagnostic-equipment-corp-nyappdiv-1994.