From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kikis v. McRoberts Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 21, 1996
225 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 21, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.).


There is no dispute that plaintiff's claims are governed by the laws of Delaware as issues of corporate governance are determined by the State in which the corporation is chartered ( Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 A.D.2d 179, 182, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 608).

Plaintiff herein is a minority shareholder of a closely held corporation who, as an employee-at-will, was without the benefit of an employment contract limiting the employer's right to discharge him. Further, plaintiff is not entitled to any special protection against being terminated by reason of his status as a minority shareholder ( Manchester v Narragansett Capital, 1989 WL 125190 [Del. Ch. Ct, Oct. 19, 1989, Chandler, V Ch]; Merrill v Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 103).

Plaintiff has also failed to allege that he negotiated for, or is in possession of, any rights which would enhance his position under any stockholders' agreement or buy-out agreement executed by the corporation's stockholders. Since the Delaware Supreme Court has unequivocally rejected the notion that there are any special, judicially-created rules to protect the minority shareholders of Delaware corporations ( Nixon v Blackwell, 626 A.2d 1366, 1379), the complaint is dismissed.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Kikis v. McRoberts Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 21, 1996
225 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Kikis v. McRoberts Corporation

Case Details

Full title:PETER T. KIKIS, Respondent, v. McROBERTS CORPORATION et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Mar 21, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 346

Citing Cases

Zutrau ex rel. Ice Sys., Inc. v. Ice Sys., Inc.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff's third cause of action is governed by the laws of Delaware. Issues of…

VENTURETEK, L.P. v. RAND PUBL'G CO., INC.

Once the movant has made such a showing, the party opposing the motion has the burden of producing…