Simon v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simon v. Siegel

224 A.D.2d 315, 637 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1322

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 315 (Simon v. Siegel) 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

Simon v. Siegel, 224 A.D.2d 315, 637 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered December 6, 1994, dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiffs case pursuant to CPLR 4401, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs case for failure to establish a prima facie case. With respect to the breach of contract cause of action based on provisions requiring the surviving shareholder to purchase the shares of a deceased shareholder — the only cause of action whose dismissal is challenged on this appeal — evidence was lacking, inter alia, that defendant had failed to purchase the shares owned by plaintiffs decedent at the time of his death. Contrary to plaintiff s contention, the testimony of Dr. N. Tully Simon, decedent’s father, indicates merely that he did not know whether his son’s interest was sold back to the corporation. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered December 6, 1994, dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiffs case pursuant to CPLR 4401, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs case for failure to establish a prima facie case. With respect to the breach of contract cause of action based on provisions requiring the surviving shareholder to purchase the shares of a deceased shareholder — the only cause of action whose dismissal is challenged on this appeal — evidence was lacking, inter alia, that defendant had failed to purchase the shares owned by plaintiffs decedent at the time of his death. Contrary to plaintiff s contention, the testimony of Dr. N. Tully Simon, decedent’s father, indicates merely that he did not know whether his son’s interest was sold back to the corporation. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 315, 637 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-siegel-nyappdiv-1996.