Quasha v. American Natural Beverage Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quasha v. American Natural Beverage Corp.

171 A.D.2d 537, 567 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 537 (Quasha v. American Natural Beverage Corp.) 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

Quasha v. American Natural Beverage Corp., 171 A.D.2d 537, 567 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.) entered on February 21, 1990, which, after a jury trial and after denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict or, in the alternative, to order a new trial pursuant to CPLR 4404, and then after denying plaintiff’s motion for a written decision pursuant to CPLR 4211 and 4213, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly found for the defendants. The individual defendants, as corporate officers and directors of the defendant corporation, owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff as a shareholder (Giblin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769). Although silence as to material facts may constitute fraud where there is a fiduciary relationship (see generally, IBM Credit Fin. Corp. v Mazda Motor Mfg. [USA] Corp., 152 AD2d 451), the record in this case shows that the documents withheld from plaintiff contain nothing more than speculation, advertising puffery and the defendants’ hopes for the future of the company.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.) entered on February 21, 1990, which, after a jury trial and after denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict or, in the alternative, to order a new trial pursuant to CPLR 4404, and then after denying plaintiff’s motion for a written decision pursuant to CPLR 4211 and 4213, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly found for the defendants. The individual defendants, as corporate officers and directors of the defendant corporation, owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff as a shareholder (Giblin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769). Although silence as to material facts may constitute fraud where there is a fiduciary relationship (see generally, IBM Credit Fin. Corp. v Mazda Motor Mfg. [USA] Corp., 152 AD2d 451), the record in this case shows that the documents withheld from plaintiff contain nothing more than speculation, advertising puffery and the defendants’ hopes for the future of the company.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 537, 567 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quasha-v-american-natural-beverage-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack