Orenstein v. Snow Becker Krauss P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orenstein v. Snow Becker Krauss P.C.

103 A.D.3d 512, 959 N.Y.S.2d 431

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 512 (Orenstein v. Snow Becker Krauss P.C.) 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

Orenstein v. Snow Becker Krauss P.C., 103 A.D.3d 512, 959 N.Y.S.2d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or about October 13, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 624, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the petition, finding that petitioner was not entitled to inspect respondent’s corporate documents since he was no longer a shareholder (see Matter of Rosenberg v Steinberg-Kass, 6 AD2d 685 [1st Dept 1958]). Petitioner waived his right to challenge the propriety of the termination of his shareholder interest in respondent by signing an agreement to that effect, and by failing to assert a right to inspect documents until more than six years after the termination (see Hadden v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 45 NY2d 466, 469 [1978]). Petitioner’s argument that he has a right to inspect the records even though he ceased to be a shareholder in 2002 is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief. In any event, Business Corporation Law § 624 provides this right only to current shareholders (see Matter of Benishai v Ilan Props., 303 AD2d 226 [1st Dept 2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or about October 13, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 624, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the petition, finding that petitioner was not entitled to inspect respondent’s corporate documents since he was no longer a shareholder (see Matter of Rosenberg v Steinberg-Kass, 6 AD2d 685 [1st Dept 1958]). Petitioner waived his right to challenge the propriety of the termination of his shareholder interest in respondent by signing an agreement to that effect, and by failing to assert a right to inspect documents until more than six years after the termination (see Hadden v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 45 NY2d 466, 469 [1978]). Petitioner’s argument that he has a right to inspect the records even though he ceased to be a shareholder in 2002 is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief. In any event, Business Corporation Law § 624 provides this right only to current shareholders (see Matter of Benishai v Ilan Props., 303 AD2d 226 [1st Dept 2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 512, 959 N.Y.S.2d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orenstein-v-snow-becker-krauss-pc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack