Torres v. Speiser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Speiser

268 A.D.2d 253, 701 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 338

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 253 (Torres v. Speiser) 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

Torres v. Speiser, 268 A.D.2d 253, 701 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 24, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment with respect to his claim that the sale of his minority interest in defendant corporation to the individual defendant is invalid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to plaintiffs argument that the sale of his stock is invalid under Business Corporation Law § 504 because the price of the stock was less than its par value and such defect could not be cured by the individual defendant’s promises of future consideration. While section 504 prohibits an initial issuance of stock in a new corporation for less than par value or before the full purchase price is paid, it has no bearing on a re-sale of issued shares among shareholders, as occurred here (see, Vohra v Prasad Realty Corp., 174 AD2d 735). Nor can summary judgment be granted to plaintiff on the ground that the individual defendant’s promises to assist him in establishing a check cashing business in Puerto Rico that he was to manage, and to establish a corporation to own that business the stock of which was to be divided between himself and defendant in a “mutually acceptable manner”, were material terms of his agreement to retransfer his stock that are so indefinite as not to be susceptible to enforcement, and that the [254]*254entire transaction therefore was nothing more than an unenforceable agreement to agree. There are issues of fact in this regard as to partial performance of the purported agreement (see, R.G. Group v Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F2d 69, 75-76; 1163 Realty Corp v United Institutional Servicing Corp., 55 AD2d 908, 909; SNC, Ltd. v Kamine Eng’g & Mech. Contr. Co., 238 AD2d 146). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unpersuasive.

Motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 and for other related relief denied. Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 24, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment with respect to his claim that the sale of his minority interest in defendant corporation to the individual defendant is invalid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to plaintiffs argument that the sale of his stock is invalid under Business Corporation Law § 504 because the price of the stock was less than its par value and such defect could not be cured by the individual defendant’s promises of future consideration. While section 504 prohibits an initial issuance of stock in a new corporation for less than par value or before the full purchase price is paid, it has no bearing on a re-sale of issued shares among shareholders, as occurred here (see, Vohra v Prasad Realty Corp., 174 AD2d 735). Nor can summary judgment be granted to plaintiff on the ground that the individual defendant’s promises to assist him in establishing a check cashing business in Puerto Rico that he was to manage, and to establish a corporation to own that business the stock of which was to be divided between himself and defendant in a “mutually acceptable manner”, were material terms of his agreement to retransfer his stock that are so indefinite as not to be susceptible to enforcement, and that the [254]*254entire transaction therefore was nothing more than an unenforceable agreement to agree. There are issues of fact in this regard as to partial performance of the purported agreement (see, R.G. Group v Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F2d 69, 75-76; 1163 Realty Corp v United Institutional Servicing Corp., 55 AD2d 908, 909; SNC, Ltd. v Kamine Eng’g & Mech. Contr. Co., 238 AD2d 146). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unpersuasive.

Motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 and for other related relief denied. Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 253, 701 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-speiser-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack