From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeMarco v. Clove Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 18, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Even assuming there was a validly-formed corporation, the plaintiff failed to establish his status as a shareholder under the "contemporaneous ownership" rule of Business Corporation Law § 626 Bus. Corp. (b) ( see, Independent Investor Protective League v. Time, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 259; Toussier y Asociados, S.C. v. Rivero, 184 A.D.2d 397). Further, "the unquestionable thrust of [the plaintiffs] objective here is to vindicate his personal rights as an individual and not as a stockholder on behalf of the corporation" ( Rossi v. Kelly, 96 A.D.2d 451, 452; see, Chalmers v. Eaton Corp., 71 A.D.2d 721). Thus, the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action.

Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DeMarco v. Clove Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

DeMarco v. Clove Estates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY DeMARCO, Appellant, v. CLOVE ESTATES, INC., et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 18, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 784

Citing Cases

Wallace v. Perret

In order to determine whether a claim is derivative or individual, "[t]he pertinent inquiry is whether the…

Wallace v. Perret

However, the language of Partnership Law § 121-1002 (d) and § 115-a (4) is nearly identical and they have no…