In Re the Judicial Dissolution Under Section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law of the Klein Law Group, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Re the Judicial Dissolution Under Section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law of the Klein Law Group, P.C.

134 A.D.3d 450, 19 N.Y.S.3d 748

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2015

Docket651609/14 16312A 16312

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 450 (In Re the Judicial Dissolution Under Section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law of the Klein Law Group, P.C.) 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 Judicial Dissolution Under Section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law of the Klein Law Group, P.C., 134 A.D.3d 450, 19 N.Y.S.3d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered March 10, 2015, which, respectively, denied the petition for judicial dissolution of respondent law firm, and granted the motion to deny the petition and denied the remaining issues as moot, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“The ultimate remedy of dissolution and forced sale of corporate assets should only be applied as a last resort” (Matter of 168 1/2 Delancey Corp., 174 AD2d 523, 526 [1st Dept 1991]). Accordingly, the motion court providently exercised its discretion when it denied the petition for dissolution of the subject corporation (Business Corporation Law § 1111 [a]). The areas of dissension, as alleged in the petition and affidavits, do not impede the ability of the firm to function effectively (see Molod v Berkowitz, 233 AD2d 149, 149 [1st Dept 1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1029 [1997]). Nor did the motion court abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petition at the pleading stage, as “[a] hearing is only required where there is some contested issue determinative of the validity of the application” (Matter of Gordon & Weiss, 32 AD2d 279, 280 [1st Dept 1969]). Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered March 10, 2015, which, respectively, denied the petition for judicial dissolution of respondent law firm, and granted the motion to deny the petition and denied the remaining issues as moot, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“The ultimate remedy of dissolution and forced sale of corporate assets should only be applied as a last resort” (Matter of 168 1/2 Delancey Corp., 174 AD2d 523, 526 [1st Dept 1991]). Accordingly, the motion court providently exercised its discretion when it denied the petition for dissolution of the subject corporation (Business Corporation Law § 1111 [a]). The areas of dissension, as alleged in the petition and affidavits, do not impede the ability of the firm to function effectively (see Molod v Berkowitz, 233 AD2d 149, 149 [1st Dept 1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1029 [1997]). Nor did the motion court abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petition at the pleading stage, as “[a] hearing is only required where there is some contested issue determinative of the validity of the application” (Matter of Gordon & Weiss, 32 AD2d 279, 280 [1st Dept 1969]). Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 450, 19 N.Y.S.3d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-dissolution-under-section-1104-of-the-business-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack