Romanoff v. Superior Career Institute, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romanoff v. Superior Career Institute, Inc.

69 A.D.2d 856, 415 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552

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

DecidedApril 16, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 A.D.2d 856 (Romanoff v. Superior Career Institute, 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

Romanoff v. Superior Career Institute, Inc., 69 A.D.2d 856, 415 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an accounting and to rescind or reform a contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 1978, which denied their motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed. The plaintiff admits that the first two causes of action in the amended complaint seek a corporate accounting. Under subdivision (b) of section 720 of the Business Corporation Law, this remedy may be sought by a shareholder only in a derivative action brought in the right of the corporation. Since the action has been brought by the plaintiff in his individual capacity, the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action with respect thereto. Thus, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted as to those causes of action. The third cause of action should also have been dismissed. It seeks reformation or rescission of a shareholder’s agreement. This agreement had been signed by the plaintiff’s wife during a period in which the plaintiff was not a shareholder of the corporation. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the contract or a third-party beneficiary thereof, he has no standing to seek such remedies. Thus, the third claim also fails to state a cause of action. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for an accounting and to rescind or reform a contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 1978, which denied their motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed. The plaintiff admits that the first two causes of action in the amended complaint seek a corporate accounting. Under subdivision (b) of section 720 of the Business Corporation Law, this remedy may be sought by a shareholder only in a derivative action brought in the right of the corporation. Since the action has been brought by the plaintiff in his individual capacity, the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action with respect thereto. Thus, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted as to those causes of action. The third cause of action should also have been dismissed. It seeks reformation or rescission of a shareholder’s agreement. This agreement had been signed by the plaintiff’s wife during a period in which the plaintiff was not a shareholder of the corporation. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the contract or a third-party beneficiary thereof, he has no standing to seek such remedies. Thus, the third claim also fails to state a cause of action. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 856, 415 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanoff-v-superior-career-institute-inc-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack