Walsh-Jones Agency, Inc. v. Rutecki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh-Jones Agency, Inc. v. Rutecki

210 A.D.2d 953, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 953 (Walsh-Jones Agency, Inc. v. Rutecki) 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

Walsh-Jones Agency, Inc. v. Rutecki, 210 A.D.2d 953, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed four counterclaims and the third-party complaint of Victor J. Rutecki (defendant). A shareholder may not sue in an individual capacity for a wrong committed against a corporation (see, Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953). The court properly refused to grant defendant summary judgment on the fourth counterclaim and third cause of action in the third-party complaint because defendant failed to meet [954]*954his burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Lindsay v Potter, 163 AD2d 870).

The court properly limited the accounting of the assets of the corporation. Defendant’s claims to the insurance commissions were properly dismissed and the court previously had determined that the insurance expirations, renewals and customer lists have no value as a matter of law and were not to be considered in the accounting.

Finally, we reject the contention that the court abused its discretion by refusing to award defendant counsel fees and costs. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Dismiss Counterclaim.) Present—Balio, J. P., Law-ton, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed four counterclaims and the third-party complaint of Victor J. Rutecki (defendant). A shareholder may not sue in an individual capacity for a wrong committed against a corporation (see, Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953). The court properly refused to grant defendant summary judgment on the fourth counterclaim and third cause of action in the third-party complaint because defendant failed to meet [954]*954his burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Lindsay v Potter, 163 AD2d 870).

The court properly limited the accounting of the assets of the corporation. Defendant’s claims to the insurance commissions were properly dismissed and the court previously had determined that the insurance expirations, renewals and customer lists have no value as a matter of law and were not to be considered in the accounting.

Finally, we reject the contention that the court abused its discretion by refusing to award defendant counsel fees and costs. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Dismiss Counterclaim.) Present—Balio, J. P., Law-ton, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 953, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-jones-agency-inc-v-rutecki-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack