Winter v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winter v. Bernstein

233 A.D.2d 182, 649 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11684

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 182 (Winter v. Bernstein) 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

Winter v. Bernstein, 233 A.D.2d 182, 649 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 21, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint based on alleged newly discovered material evidence (CPLR 3025 [b]) and for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs are merely "seeking to reargue” its earlier decision, which had been affirmed in relevant part by this Court (177 AD2d 452). Plaintiffs’ evidence is not new and does not alter this Court’s prior determination that plaintiffs are estopped from challenging the salary and dividend policies of this subchapter S corporation prior to 1989 as a result of "complete ratification and acquiescence” (supra, at 453). All questions with respect to the reasonableness of officers’ salaries and dividend distribution after 1989 must be resolved at trial. Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Dec. 17, 1996.]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 21, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint based on alleged newly discovered material evidence (CPLR 3025 [b]) and for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs are merely "seeking to reargue” its earlier decision, which had been affirmed in relevant part by this Court (177 AD2d 452). Plaintiffs’ evidence is not new and does not alter this Court’s prior determination that plaintiffs are estopped from challenging the salary and dividend policies of this subchapter S corporation prior to 1989 as a result of "complete ratification and acquiescence” (supra, at 453). All questions with respect to the reasonableness of officers’ salaries and dividend distribution after 1989 must be resolved at trial. Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Dec. 17, 1996.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 182, 649 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winter-v-bernstein-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack