Ostad v. Ostad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ostad v. Ostad

245 A.D.2d 117, 666 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13003

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 117 (Ostad v. Ostad) 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

Ostad v. Ostad, 245 A.D.2d 117, 666 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13003 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 16, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants fail to present any evidence supporting their claim that plaintiff had notice of the restrictions contained in the stock certificate, which plaintiff was never given (cf., Menaker v Podover, 75 AD2d 807, lv denied and dismissed 50 NY2d 926). Nor can such notice be inferred from the shareholders agreement defendants seek to enforce, where plaintiff and his father were issued new shares directly from the corporation and were not signatories to the agreement (see, Fiore v Fiore, 46 NY2d 971). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 16, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants fail to present any evidence supporting their claim that plaintiff had notice of the restrictions contained in the stock certificate, which plaintiff was never given (cf., Menaker v Podover, 75 AD2d 807, lv denied and dismissed 50 NY2d 926). Nor can such notice be inferred from the shareholders agreement defendants seek to enforce, where plaintiff and his father were issued new shares directly from the corporation and were not signatories to the agreement (see, Fiore v Fiore, 46 NY2d 971). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 117, 666 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostad-v-ostad-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack