Opinion
April 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, by adding a provision thereto dismissing those causes of action in the complaint seeking to enjoin the appellants from utilizing or disposing of the real property, business opportunities, tools, equipment, credit, funds, inventory, warehousing and shop facilities of Joseph M. Corcoran, Inc., and from competing either directly or indirectly with Joseph M. Corcoran, Inc.; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the plaintiff, as 50% shareholder of Joseph M. Corcoran, Inc. (hereinafter the corporation), who was allegedly forced out of his position as an officer in February 1983 by the defendant John A. Corcoran, who was also a 50% shareholder of the corporation, had a right to bring and maintain this derivative action regardless of his personal motive for so doing (see, Baliotti v Walkes, 134 A.D.2d 554, 555; Meredith v Camp Hill Estates, 77 A.D.2d 649; cf., Steinberg v Steinberg, 106 Misc.2d 720). Moreover, the issue of whether dissolution occurred in January 1984 upon the rendering of an arbitrator's decision, pursuant to a provision contained in the shareholders' agreement, or in May 1984 upon the entry of a judgment confirming that decision (see, CPLR 7510, 7514) is of no import, inasmuch as the dissolution of the corporation had no bearing on the plaintiff's ability to bring or maintain this suit (see, Independent Investor Protective League v Time, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 259; Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 A.D.2d 454; see also, 4 White, New York Corporations ¶ 1006.08, at 10-46, 10-47).
However, in light of the sale of the entirety of the corporation's physical assets by the receiver subsequent to dissolution, as conceded by the plaintiff, an injunction barring the appellants from utilizing or disposing of the corporation's assets and from competing with the corporation is unnecessary, and monetary relief would constitute an adequate remedy.
We have examined the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.