Opinion
May 18, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Special Term correctly concluded that the challenged election of directors of the respondent corporation was properly conducted (see, Business Corporation Law §§ 619, 608). The petitioner argues that his shares should not have been counted in determining whether there was a quorum present because the shareholders' meeting was held at an improper location and he attended the meeting only to protest the location. This argument is raised for the first time on appeal and therefore may not be considered by this court (see, Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. Maintenance Corp., 115 A.D.2d 576). In any event, the argument is clearly meritless. The record shows that the petitioner attended the meeting without ever complaining that it was being held at an improper location and he thus waived any objection which he might have had in that respect (see, 5 Fletcher, Cyclopedia of Corporations § 2005 [1976 perm ed, 1986 Supp Pamph]). Finally, we agree with Special Term that it was unnecessary for it to determine whether the 30 shares of stock held by Arlington Avenue Associates, Inc., were validly issued, since the election result would have been the same even if those shares had not been voted (see, Matter of Goldfield Corp. v General Host Corp., 29 N.Y.2d 264; Matter of Schmidt [Magnetic Head Corp.], 97 A.D.2d 244). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.