Sadock v. Lady Ester Lingerie Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sadock v. Lady Ester Lingerie Corporation

221 A.D.2d 272, 634 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12139

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 272 (Sadock v. Lady Ester Lingerie Corporation) 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

Sadock v. Lady Ester Lingerie Corporation, 221 A.D.2d 272, 634 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 4, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action and, upon a search of the record, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs attempt to invalidate defendant Karen Sadock’s election to the board of directors of Lady Ester Lingerie and her subsequent actions as a director is clearly without merit. Pursuant to the corporation’s shareholders’ agreement, bylaws and certificate of incorporation, Ms. Sadock was legitimately elected as a fourth director by a unanimous vote, including that of plaintiff, although only a plurality was necessary, and subsequently re-elected by a plurality of the shareholders at many annual meetings. The shareholders’ agreement allows as many as seven directors and Business Corporation Law § 614 provides that only a plurality vote is necessary where, as here, the certificate of incorporation does not state otherwise.

It is clear that this meritless lawsuit is brought, as were two preceding suits, in retaliation for defendants’ refusal to accede to plaintiffs’ buy-out demands and any. further frivolous proceeding by plaintiff will result in the imposition of substantial sanctions. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 4, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action and, upon a search of the record, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs attempt to invalidate defendant Karen Sadock’s election to the board of directors of Lady Ester Lingerie and her subsequent actions as a director is clearly without merit. Pursuant to the corporation’s shareholders’ agreement, bylaws and certificate of incorporation, Ms. Sadock was legitimately elected as a fourth director by a unanimous vote, including that of plaintiff, although only a plurality was necessary, and subsequently re-elected by a plurality of the shareholders at many annual meetings. The shareholders’ agreement allows as many as seven directors and Business Corporation Law § 614 provides that only a plurality vote is necessary where, as here, the certificate of incorporation does not state otherwise.

It is clear that this meritless lawsuit is brought, as were two preceding suits, in retaliation for defendants’ refusal to accede to plaintiffs’ buy-out demands and any. further frivolous proceeding by plaintiff will result in the imposition of substantial sanctions. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 272, 634 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadock-v-lady-ester-lingerie-corporation-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack