Seidman & Co. v. Maharam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidman & Co. v. Maharam

295 A.D.2d 292, 744 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6862

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

DecidedJune 27, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 292 (Seidman & Co. v. Maharam) 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

Seidman & Co. v. Maharam, 295 A.D.2d 292, 744 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered March 16, 2000, which granted plaintiffs motion to restore this action and denied defendant’s cross motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 26, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Given that plaintiff amended its certificate of incorporation to change its name from “S.N. Seidman & Co., Inc.” to “Seidman & Co., Inc.” which was the name by which plaintiff commenced the current action, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs motion to restore this action, which had been dismissed conditionally, since plaintiff effectively complied with the requirements of Business Corporation Law § 202 (b) and General Business Law § 130 by no longer conducting or transacting business under a name other than that contained in its certificate of incorporation, and the name change did not deprive plaintiff of its ability to sue or be sued (see, Scaffold-Russ Dilworth v Shared Mgt. Group, 289 AD2d 932, 935).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur—Buckley, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered March 16, 2000, which granted plaintiffs motion to restore this action and denied defendant’s cross motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 26, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Given that plaintiff amended its certificate of incorporation to change its name from “S.N. Seidman & Co., Inc.” to “Seidman & Co., Inc.” which was the name by which plaintiff commenced the current action, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs motion to restore this action, which had been dismissed conditionally, since plaintiff effectively complied with the requirements of Business Corporation Law § 202 (b) and General Business Law § 130 by no longer conducting or transacting business under a name other than that contained in its certificate of incorporation, and the name change did not deprive plaintiff of its ability to sue or be sued (see, Scaffold-Russ Dilworth v Shared Mgt. Group, 289 AD2d 932, 935).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur—Buckley, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 292, 744 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seidman-co-v-maharam-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack