Wisniewski v. Polish & Slavic Center, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 869, 766 N.Y.S.2d 55
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 869 (Wisniewski v. Polish & Slavic Center, 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
Wisniewski v. Polish & Slavic Center, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 869, 766 N.Y.S.2d 55 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 621, inter alia, to inspect the books and records of the Polish and Slavic Center, Inc., the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 20, 2002, which denied his motion to compel the inspection of books and records.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

At common law, the right to inspect corporate books and records is qualified and can only be asserted when a corporate shareholder is acting in good faith and has established that the inspection is for a proper purpose (see Matter of Crane Co. v Anaconda Co., 39 NY2d 14, 18 [1976]). In the present case, the petitioner, a member of the respondent-respondent not-for-profit corporation Polish and Slavic Center, Inc. (hereinafter PSC), demonstrated his good faith and a proper purpose in his affidavit supporting his motion to compel PSC to produce certain of its books and records for inspection (see Matter of Troccoli v L&B Contr. Indus., 259 AD2d 754, 754-755 [1999]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and a determination by the court, in its discretion, as to whether inspection of all of the books and records listed in the petitioner’s motion is relevant and necessary for the petitioner’s purposes. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Selvaggio v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 31030(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Goldstein v. Acropolis Gardens Realty Corp.
116 A.D.3d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
309 A.D.2d 869, 766 N.Y.S.2d 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisniewski-v-polish-slavic-center-inc-nyappdiv-2003.