Silverman v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverman v. Schwartz

248 A.D.2d 332, 670 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3363

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 332 (Silverman v. Schwartz) 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

Silverman v. Schwartz, 248 A.D.2d 332, 670 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about March 10, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the supplemental amended derivative complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly concluded that plaintiff did not have standing to prosecute a derivative action on behalf of the corporate defendant Loral Space and Communications Limited since the claims plaintiff sought to bring in a derivative capacity were not properly the claims of Loral Space but rather those of the Loral Corporation, an entity of which plaintiff is no longer a stockholder, her shares therein having been previously tendered for cash in the course of the Loral Corporation’s merger with the Lockheed Corporation (see, Business Corporation Law § 626 [b]; see also, Rubinstein v Catacosinos, 91 AD2d 445, 446-447, affd for reasons stated 60 NY2d 890). We note in addition that even if plaintiff had standing, the complaint would have been properly dismissed on the ground that the documentary evidence offered by defendants conclusively establishes that the Loral Corporation was contractually bound to make the payment to which plaintiff objects.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about March 10, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the supplemental amended derivative complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly concluded that plaintiff did not have standing to prosecute a derivative action on behalf of the corporate defendant Loral Space and Communications Limited since the claims plaintiff sought to bring in a derivative capacity were not properly the claims of Loral Space but rather those of the Loral Corporation, an entity of which plaintiff is no longer a stockholder, her shares therein having been previously tendered for cash in the course of the Loral Corporation’s merger with the Lockheed Corporation (see, Business Corporation Law § 626 [b]; see also, Rubinstein v Catacosinos, 91 AD2d 445, 446-447, affd for reasons stated 60 NY2d 890). We note in addition that even if plaintiff had standing, the complaint would have been properly dismissed on the ground that the documentary evidence offered by defendants conclusively establishes that the Loral Corporation was contractually bound to make the payment to which plaintiff objects.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 332, 670 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack