Matter of Wright v. Irish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Wright v. Irish

2017 NY Slip Op 8836, 156 A.D.3d 803, 65 N.Y.S.3d 737

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2017

Docket2015-07548

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8836 (Matter of Wright v. Irish) 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

Matter of Wright v. Irish, 2017 NY Slip Op 8836, 156 A.D.3d 803, 65 N.Y.S.3d 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for judicial dissolution of a closely held corporation, where there has been an election to purchase the shares owned by the petitioner pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1118, Jeffrey B. Irish appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated June 11, 2015, which, upon a decision of the same court dated November 7, 2014, made after a hearing, and upon an order of the same court dated March 24, 2015, denying his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside the decision, is in favor of the petitioner and against him in the principal sum of $3,833,558.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“The determination of a fact-finder as to the value of a business, if it is within the range of testimony presented, will not be disturbed on appeal where the valuation rests primarily on the credibility of the expert witnesses and their valuation techniques” (Matter of USA Nutritionals, 306 AD2d 490, 491 [2003]; see Matter of Adelstein v Finest Food Distrib. Co., N.Y., Inc., 116 AD3d 850, 851 [2014]). Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the Supreme Court’s determination as to the fair value of the petitioner’s shares in the subject corporation is supported by the evidence (see Matter of Adelstein v Finest Food Distrib. Co., N.Y., Inc., 116 AD3d at 851; Matter of USA Nutritionals, 306 AD2d at 491).

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for judicial dissolution of a closely held corporation, where there has been an election to purchase the shares owned by the petitioner pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1118, Jeffrey B. Irish appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated June 11, 2015, which, upon a decision of the same court dated November 7, 2014, made after a hearing, and upon an order of the same court dated March 24, 2015, denying his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside the decision, is in favor of the petitioner and against him in the principal sum of $3,833,558.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“The determination of a fact-finder as to the value of a business, if it is within the range of testimony presented, will not be disturbed on appeal where the valuation rests primarily on the credibility of the expert witnesses and their valuation techniques” (Matter of USA Nutritionals, 306 AD2d 490, 491 [2003]; see Matter of Adelstein v Finest Food Distrib. Co., N.Y., Inc., 116 AD3d 850, 851 [2014]). Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the Supreme Court’s determination as to the fair value of the petitioner’s shares in the subject corporation is supported by the evidence (see Matter of Adelstein v Finest Food Distrib. Co., N.Y., Inc., 116 AD3d at 851; Matter of USA Nutritionals, 306 AD2d at 491).

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8836, 156 A.D.3d 803, 65 N.Y.S.3d 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wright-v-irish-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack