Opinion
September 21, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).
Concerning the first cause of action, although plaintiff admittedly was not a director at the time the amended complaint was served, the IAS Court properly allowed the amended complaint to relate back to the original complaint for the purpose of establishing plaintiff's derivative standing as a director, since the amended complaint contains no allegations of wrongful conduct separate and independent from that originally alleged (see, Druckerman v Harbord, 31 N.Y.S.2d 867, 871). The second cause of action, containing allegations that the individual defendants concealed financial information from plaintiff and misled him into authorizing an unequal compensation scheme, states a claim as to alleged wrongs against him individually. As to the sixth cause of action, defendants' liability turns on whether plaintiff's share of the corporation's book value was determined according to generally accepted accounting principles, an issue of fact (see, Teich v Andersen Co., 24 A.D.2d 749).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.