Siegel v. Protiva

130 A.D.2d 569, 515 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46568
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 11, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 569 (Siegel v. Protiva) 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
Siegel v. Protiva, 130 A.D.2d 569, 515 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring the percentages of the ownership of the shares of stock in F.H. Management Corp. (hereinafter F.H.), the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated September 18, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, declared that the plaintiff owned 25% of the shares and the defendants 75% of the shares of F.H., ordered that certifi[570]*570cates be drawn and executed to that effect, ordered the plaintiff to return $6,000 to the corporate treasury, and ordered the plaintiff to return any files in her possession that belong to F.H. to the corporate offices. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court (Le Vine, J.), dated July 26, 1985, which denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the case from the calendar.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Our review of the record indicates that the verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence.

We note that the defendant G.M. Proulx, the vice-president of F.H., was a proper party to interpose a counterclaim against the plaintiff, the president of F.H., to compel the plaintiff to return $6,000 to the corporate treasury and files belonging to F.H. to the corporate offices (see, Business Corporation Law § 720 [a] [1] [A], [B]; [b]).

Further, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she suffered any prejudice as a result of the denial of her motion to strike the case from the calendar. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bouhayer v. Georgalis
169 Misc. 2d 779 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
L. W. Kent & Co. v. Wolf
143 A.D.2d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 A.D.2d 569, 515 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-protiva-nyappdiv-1987.