Madison v. Striggles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madison v. Striggles

228 A.D.2d 170, 644 N.Y.2d 6, 644 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6292

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

DecidedJune 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 170 (Madison v. Striggles) 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

Madison v. Striggles, 228 A.D.2d 170, 644 N.Y.2d 6, 644 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS Court correctly determined that paragraph 15 of the first amendment to the offering plan, which provides, in pertinent part, that the "Sponsor will vote its shares so that its votes and those of other holders of Unsold Shares will not elect a majority of the Board of Directors”, does not prohibit the sponsor from combining her votes with those of other resident shareholders, who are not holders of unsold shares, to elect three or more members of the five-member Board of Directors. To hold otherwise would deprive the sponsor of her right to vote all of her shares, a result that can be accomplished only through a provision in the certificate of incorporation (Business Corporation Law § 612 [a]; Yu v Linton, 68 AD2d 856; see, Rego Park Gardens Assocs. v Rego Park Gardens Owners, 174 AD2d 337, lv denied 78 NY2d 859). We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The IAS Court correctly determined that paragraph 15 of the first amendment to the offering plan, which provides, in pertinent part, that the "Sponsor will vote its shares so that its votes and those of other holders of Unsold Shares will not elect a majority of the Board of Directors”, does not prohibit the sponsor from combining her votes with those of other resident shareholders, who are not holders of unsold shares, to elect three or more members of the five-member Board of Directors. To hold otherwise would deprive the sponsor of her right to vote all of her shares, a result that can be accomplished only through a provision in the certificate of incorporation (Business Corporation Law § 612 [a]; Yu v Linton, 68 AD2d 856; see, Rego Park Gardens Assocs. v Rego Park Gardens Owners, 174 AD2d 337, lv denied 78 NY2d 859). We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 170, 644 N.Y.2d 6, 644 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-v-striggles-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack