From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lauer v. Schoenholtz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 1984
106 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 24, 1984

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


Order modified, by denying that branch of the motion of defendant Rye Psychiatric Hospital Center, Inc., which sought dismissal of the first and second causes of action of plaintiffs' amended verified complaint as against it, and reinstating those causes of action as against it. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The three plaintiffs and defendants Schoenholtz, Essman and Pagliaro each own one sixth of the voting shares of Rye Psychiatric Hospital Center, Inc., and constitute its Board of Directors, which has been deadlocked over a lengthy period of time (see Matter of Rye Psychiatric Hosp. Center v. Schoenholtz, 101 A.D.2d 309). Under the circumstances of this case, the allegations lodged in the amended verified complaint against defendants Essman and Pagliaro, albeit insufficient to state a cause of action for breach of their fiduciary duties as corporate directors, are sufficient to show such bias and antagonism on their part as would render futile any demand by plaintiffs on the board to take corrective action regarding defendant Schoenholtz's alleged misconduct. Liberally construed, plaintiffs' amended verified complaint satisfied the requirement of subdivision (c) of section 626 Bus. Corp. of the Business Corporation Law in that it "set forth with particularity the efforts of the plaintiff to secure the initiation of [an] action [to procure a judgment in the corporation's favor] by the board or the reasons for not making such effort". Therefore, Special Term erred in granting that branch of Rye Psychiatric Hospital Center, Inc.'s motion which sought dismissal of the first and second causes of action of plaintiffs' amended verified complaint as against it, which was made solely on the ground that plaintiffs failed to comply with that statutory provision.

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J.P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lauer v. Schoenholtz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 1984
106 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Lauer v. Schoenholtz

Case Details

Full title:I.J. LAUER et al., Appellants, v. JACK C. SCHOENHOLTZ et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 24, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Wynkoop v. 622A President St. Owners Corp.

“Demand is futile, and excused, when the directors are incapable of making an impartial decision as to…

Rye Psychiatric Hosp. Center, Inc. v. Doniger

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs. This action, which seeks to surcharge the defendants,…