Waldman v. Eldorado Towers, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waldman v. Eldorado Towers, Ltd.

25 A.D.2d 836, 270 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4229

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

DecidedMay 17, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 836 (Waldman v. Eldorado Towers, Ltd.) 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

Waldman v. Eldorado Towers, Ltd., 25 A.D.2d 836, 270 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, denominated an order, entered February 11, 1966, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to petitioner-appellant, and the application for inspection of respondent corporation’s books and records is granted. While petitioner’s papers are not detailed in asserting his grounds for seeking the inspection, they do make clear, and it is not disputed by the respondent corporation’s opposing papers, that petitioner has been excluded from information concerning the assets, funds and dealings of this close corporation in which he is a shareholder. Assuming good faith (and no facts indicating petitioner’s [837]*837bad faitb are alleged) this would entitle him to an inspection (Matter of Steinway, 159 N. Y. 250; 11 N. Y. Jur., Corporations, §§ 137, 149). Moreover, tbe offer by tbe corporation to buy petitioner’s stock itself is a valid ground for petitioner’s request, since he would be entitled to ascertain the stock’s value for himself before selling (Matter of Smilkstein v. Smilkstein & Sons, 32 Misc 2d 882 [Hopkins, J.]; Matter of Bankers Trust Co. v. Rosenhirsch Co., 20 Misc 2d 792, 794 [Loreto, J.]; Matter of Pearson v. Formrite Corp., 223 N. Y. S. 2d 15 [Meyer, J.]; Anno., Corporate Records — Inspection — Purpose, 15 ALR 2d 11, 42 — 45).

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and Eager, JJ.

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

Judgment, denominated an order, entered February 11, 1966, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to petitioner-appellant, and the application for inspection of respondent corporation’s books and records is granted. While petitioner’s papers are not detailed in asserting his grounds for seeking the inspection, they do make clear, and it is not disputed by the respondent corporation’s opposing papers, that petitioner has been excluded from information concerning the assets, funds and dealings of this close corporation in which he is a shareholder. Assuming good faith (and no facts indicating petitioner’s [837]*837bad faitb are alleged) this would entitle him to an inspection (Matter of Steinway, 159 N. Y. 250; 11 N. Y. Jur., Corporations, §§ 137, 149). Moreover, tbe offer by tbe corporation to buy petitioner’s stock itself is a valid ground for petitioner’s request, since he would be entitled to ascertain the stock’s value for himself before selling (Matter of Smilkstein v. Smilkstein & Sons, 32 Misc 2d 882 [Hopkins, J.]; Matter of Bankers Trust Co. v. Rosenhirsch Co., 20 Misc 2d 792, 794 [Loreto, J.]; Matter of Pearson v. Formrite Corp., 223 N. Y. S. 2d 15 [Meyer, J.]; Anno., Corporate Records — Inspection — Purpose, 15 ALR 2d 11, 42 — 45).

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 836, 270 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldman-v-eldorado-towers-ltd-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack