Tehan v. Tehan's Catalog Showrooms, Inc.

110 A.D.3d 1498, 972 N.Y.S.2d 808

This text of 110 A.D.3d 1498 (Tehan v. Tehan's Catalog Showrooms, Inc.) 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
Tehan v. Tehan's Catalog Showrooms, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1498, 972 N.Y.S.2d 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[1499]*1499Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Patrick F. MacRae, J.), entered September 21, 2012. The order denied the motion of respondent for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner, in her capacity as the executor of the estate of her husband (decedent), commenced this proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a seeking, inter alia, a determination that she is the owner of shares in respondent corporation held by decedent at the time of his death and dissolution of respondent. As relevant on appeal, Supreme Court denied that part of respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition based on petitioner’s lack of standing (see CPLR 3211 [a] [3]; 3212), without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the court properly denied respondent’s motion to that extent. There are issues of fact whether and to what extent the parties performed their obligations under the applicable shareholders’ agreement or whether the parties elected to abandon that agreement (see Carver v Apple Rubber Prods. Corp., 163 AD2d 849, 850 [1990]; Staebell v Bennie, 83 AD2d 765, 765-766 [1981]; see generally CPLR 3212 [f]). Finally, respondent’s contention that the court should have conducted an immediate trial pursuant to CPLR 3212 (c) to resolve all issues related to standing is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore not properly before us (see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 984 [1994]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

Related

Staebell v. Bennie
83 A.D.2d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Carver v. Apple Rubber Products Corp.
163 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora
202 A.D.2d 984 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 A.D.3d 1498, 972 N.Y.S.2d 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tehan-v-tehans-catalog-showrooms-inc-nyappdiv-2013.