Maybrown v. Malverne Distributors, Inc.

57 A.D.2d 548, 393 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11493
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 548 (Maybrown v. Malverne Distributors, Inc.) 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
Maybrown v. Malverne Distributors, Inc., 57 A.D.2d 548, 393 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

In an equity action (1) [549]*549to vacate a certain amendment to corporate by-laws, (2) to cancel shares purchased by the defendant corporation from the estate of a deceased shareholder, (3) to reinstate the plaintiff as a director of the defendant corporation and (4) for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 30, 1976, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and (2) the judgment of the same court, entered thereon on December 13, 1976. Order and judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The record indicates that the plaintiff approved corporate resolutions which (1) amended the subject by-law and (2) permitted the purchase of certain stock from a deceased shareholder’s estate as treasury stock. The plaintiff was defeated in an election of directors at an annual shareholders meeting. The record is devoid of any showing of fraud which would justify the vacation of either resolution or the setting aside of the election. We note that although the defendants’ motion sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, Special Term, the affidavits of the parties at Special Term, and the briefs on appeal have treated the motion as though it were one for summary judgment. There is, therefore, no reason for us not to treat the motion as such (cf. Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633; compare Cullen v Naples, 31 NY2d 818). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Middleton-Coulibaly v. Danco, Inc.
31 Misc. 3d 952 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2011)
Equine Practitioners Ass'n v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board
105 A.D.2d 215 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Von Seelen v. Nichols
86 A.D.2d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Gedney Ass'n v. State of New York Department of Mental Hygiene
112 Misc. 2d 209 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
Albino v. City of New York
80 A.D.2d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Gibney v. Gibney
78 A.D.2d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Schnur v. Mehl
75 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.2d 548, 393 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maybrown-v-malverne-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1977.