Jones v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Jones

223 A.D.2d 483, 637 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 541

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 483 (Jones v. Jones) 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

Jones v. Jones, 223 A.D.2d 483, 637 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered February 7, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting such motions to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs’ claims based on defendants’ failure to pay dividends in 1992, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs-shareholders satisfied the demand requirements of Business Corporation Law § 626 (c) by forwarding a draft copy of the complaint with a demand letter to defendants-directors [484]*484two and a half months prior to instituting this action (see, Ripley v International Rys., 8 AD2d 310, 317, affd 8 NY2d 430). Upon our review of the entire record, we find that defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims based on defendants’ failure to pay dividends in 1992. The uncontradicted evidence reveals that defendants were prohibited from declaring dividends since there was a stockholder equity deficit (Business Corporation Law § 510 [b]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur-Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered February 7, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting such motions to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs’ claims based on defendants’ failure to pay dividends in 1992, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs-shareholders satisfied the demand requirements of Business Corporation Law § 626 (c) by forwarding a draft copy of the complaint with a demand letter to defendants-directors [484]*484two and a half months prior to instituting this action (see, Ripley v International Rys., 8 AD2d 310, 317, affd 8 NY2d 430). Upon our review of the entire record, we find that defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims based on defendants’ failure to pay dividends in 1992. The uncontradicted evidence reveals that defendants were prohibited from declaring dividends since there was a stockholder equity deficit (Business Corporation Law § 510 [b]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur-Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 483, 637 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack