Joseph v. Amrep Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Amrep Corp.

59 A.D.2d 841, 399 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13983

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 841 (Joseph v. Amrep 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

Joseph v. Amrep Corp., 59 A.D.2d 841, 399 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 16, 1977, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff instituted this shareholders derivative action alleging, inter alia, that to demand that the board of directors bring this action would be futile since the individual defendants, by virtue of their substantial holdings, control the corporation and its board of directors. It is urged by defendants in support of the motion to dismiss that they (except for Irving W. Blum) are no longer members of the board of directors, and therefore a demand should have been made of the new directors. However, there is no refutation in the moving papers of the fact that defendants still control the corporation and its board would be hostile to any request to bring suit. The allegation of control of the board of directors, unrefuted, constitutes sufficient compliance with subdivision (c) of section 626 of the Business Corporation Law to withstand a motion to dismiss the complaint (Barr v Wackman, 36 NY2d 371, 379). Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Evans and Lane, JJ.

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

Order Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 16, 1977, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff instituted this shareholders derivative action alleging, inter alia, that to demand that the board of directors bring this action would be futile since the individual defendants, by virtue of their substantial holdings, control the corporation and its board of directors. It is urged by defendants in support of the motion to dismiss that they (except for Irving W. Blum) are no longer members of the board of directors, and therefore a demand should have been made of the new directors. However, there is no refutation in the moving papers of the fact that defendants still control the corporation and its board would be hostile to any request to bring suit. The allegation of control of the board of directors, unrefuted, constitutes sufficient compliance with subdivision (c) of section 626 of the Business Corporation Law to withstand a motion to dismiss the complaint (Barr v Wackman, 36 NY2d 371, 379). Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Evans and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 841, 399 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-amrep-corp-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack