Matter of Rand v. 610 Smith St. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Rand v. 610 Smith St. Corp.

132 A.D.3d 408, 16 N.Y.S.3d 736

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 2015·No. 650891/13 -15754 15753 15752·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered October 15, 2014, inter alia, awarding petitioner a sum of money for the fair value of her shares in respondent 610 Smith Street Corporation, and awarding her fees and expenses, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s valuation of petitioner’s shares in respon *409 dent 610 Smith Street Corporation is amply supported by the record (see Matter of Cohen v Four Way Features, 240 AD2d 225 [1st Dept 1997]). The court was not bound to accept respondents’ expert’s estimate of $6.1 million for the environmental remediation of the corporation’s sole asset, a commercial warehouse in Brooklyn, for which there is no other basis in the record; the court’s finding that $1 million is the correct estimate is supported by the trial evidence. The trial court properly awarded fees and costs to petitioner pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 623 (h) (7).

We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered October 15, 2014, inter alia, awarding petitioner a sum of money for the fair value of her shares in respondent 610 Smith Street Corporation, and awarding her fees and expenses, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s valuation of petitioner’s shares in respon *409 dent 610 Smith Street Corporation is amply supported by the record (see Matter of Cohen v Four Way Features, 240 AD2d 225 [1st Dept 1997]). The court was not bound to accept respondents’ expert’s estimate of $6.1 million for the environmental remediation of the corporation’s sole asset, a commercial warehouse in Brooklyn, for which there is no other basis in the record; the court’s finding that $1 million is the correct estimate is supported by the trial evidence. The trial court properly awarded fees and costs to petitioner pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 623 (h) (7).

We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Matter of Rand v. 610 Smith St. Corp., 132 A.D.3d 408, 16 N.Y.S.3d 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

132 A.D.3d 408 (Matter of Rand v. 610 Smith St. Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related