Opinion
304
February 21, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about January 14, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
ROBERT O. JOHNSTON, for plaintiffs-appellants.
KENNETH A. LAPATINE, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin, JJ.
The causes of action pursuant to Business Corporation Law §§ 1104 and 1104-a were properly dismissed on the basis of plaintiffs' admissions that neither is a shareholder of record of any of the subject corporations (see, Davis v. Davis, 266 A.D.2d 867, 868). Plaintiffs' purported shareholder derivative action was properly dismissed, even to the extent that plaintiffs are permitted to plead a so-called double derivative action (see, Pessin v. Chris-Craft Indus., 181 A.D.2d 66, 72-73), since plaintiffs do not satisfy the contemporaneous ownership rule (Business Corporation Law § 626[b]), which is to be strictly enforced (see, Pessin, supra, at 70). The alleged lifetime employment contract is unenforceable (see, Lowinger v. Lowinger, 287 A.D.2d 39, 45 733 N.Y.S.2d 33, 38).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find that they have not set forth any other cognizable cause of action.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.