Neville v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neville v. Martin

29 A.D.3d 444, 815 N.Y.S.2d 91

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

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 444 (Neville v. Martin) 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

Neville v. Martin, 29 A.D.3d 444, 815 N.Y.S.2d 91 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered February 17, 2006, granting the petition to dissolve respondent T.E.G. Management Corporation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The grant of the dissolution petition pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 (a) (2) was proper given the record evidence of dissension between the two 50% shareholders of the subject close corporation. This evidence left no doubt that the [445]*445corporation could not continue to function effectively (see Matter of Gordon & Weiss, 32 AD2d 279, 281 [1969]). That the dissension had no appreciable impact on the firm’s profitability was not a sufficient ground for the petition’s denial (see Business Corporation Law § 1111 [b] [3]; Molod v Berkowitz, 233 AD2d 149, 150 [1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1029 [1997]). Since there was no real dispute that dissension and deadlock existed, no hearing was necessary (see Matter of Gordon & Weiss, 32 AD2d at 280). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered February 17, 2006, granting the petition to dissolve respondent T.E.G. Management Corporation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The grant of the dissolution petition pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 (a) (2) was proper given the record evidence of dissension between the two 50% shareholders of the subject close corporation. This evidence left no doubt that the [445]*445corporation could not continue to function effectively (see Matter of Gordon & Weiss, 32 AD2d 279, 281 [1969]). That the dissension had no appreciable impact on the firm’s profitability was not a sufficient ground for the petition’s denial (see Business Corporation Law § 1111 [b] [3]; Molod v Berkowitz, 233 AD2d 149, 150 [1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1029 [1997]). Since there was no real dispute that dissension and deadlock existed, no hearing was necessary (see Matter of Gordon & Weiss, 32 AD2d at 280). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 444, 815 N.Y.S.2d 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neville-v-martin-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack