Schwartz v. Schwartz & Schlacter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Schwartz & Schlacter

188 A.D.2d 285, 590 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13476

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 285 (Schwartz v. Schwartz & Schlacter) 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

Schwartz v. Schwartz & Schlacter, 188 A.D.2d 285, 590 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered July 9, 1991, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the court’s prior order entered January 28, 1991 granting defendants summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court had properly determined that plaintiff had no standing as an individual shareholder to secure a personal recovery for an alleged wrong done to a corporation (Goldstein v Consolidated Edison Co., 115 AD2d 34, 40, lv denied 68 NY2d 604) and thus there were no grounds to vacate the prior determination. Nor was the alleged newly discovered evidence probative of the issue of standing. As defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment and plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of triable material issues of fact, the grant of summary judgment was appropriate (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

Whether the IAS Judge should have recused herself is not properly before this Court, since, absent an allegation that recusal is mandated under Judiciary Law § 14, the Judge is the sole arbiter of whether recusal is warranted (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403). We note, however, that plaintiff has not alleged anything which would give the appearance of [286]*286impropriety. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered July 9, 1991, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the court’s prior order entered January 28, 1991 granting defendants summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court had properly determined that plaintiff had no standing as an individual shareholder to secure a personal recovery for an alleged wrong done to a corporation (Goldstein v Consolidated Edison Co., 115 AD2d 34, 40, lv denied 68 NY2d 604) and thus there were no grounds to vacate the prior determination. Nor was the alleged newly discovered evidence probative of the issue of standing. As defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment and plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of triable material issues of fact, the grant of summary judgment was appropriate (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

Whether the IAS Judge should have recused herself is not properly before this Court, since, absent an allegation that recusal is mandated under Judiciary Law § 14, the Judge is the sole arbiter of whether recusal is warranted (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403). We note, however, that plaintiff has not alleged anything which would give the appearance of [286]*286impropriety. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 285, 590 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-schwartz-schlacter-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack