From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Malvica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 25, 1991
170 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 25, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner.

Pursuant to an employment contract with Mid-Island Radiology Associates, P.C. (hereinafter Mid-Island), a professional corporation whose shareholders are physicians engaged in the practice of radiology, the petitioner, also a physician, agreed to work for Mid-Island for five years. Under the contract, at the expiration of that five-year period, the petitioner was to have the option of purchasing 20% of the outstanding shares of Mid-Island, at the "book value" of the shares. At the time of the purchase, the petitioner was to receive a salary equal to that received by each of the other shareholders.

By stipulation, the parties have agreed that the aforementioned option should be deemed to have been exercised by the petitioner. Also by stipulation, Mid-Island elected, under Business Corporation Law § 1118, to purchase the petitioner's shares. The parties agreed to submit the question of the fair value of those shares to the court (see, Business Corporation Law §§ 1104-a, 1118).

In its determination of fair value, the hearing court, relying on the testimony of the petitioner's expert, considered, among other factors, the compensation received by the four principals of Mid-Island during the years encompassed by the petitioner's employment contract. Under the circumstances of this case, this was proper (see, Matter of Blake v Blake Agency, 107 A.D.2d 139, 147).

Contrary to Mid-Island's contention, the court's holding that the petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Business Corporation Law § 1118 [c] [1]).

The petitioner asserts that the Supreme Court should not have discounted the fair value of the shares at issue to reflect their limited marketability. This contention is without merit (see, Amodio v Amodio, 70 N.Y.2d 5; Matter of Joy Wholesale Sundries, 125 A.D.2d 310). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Malvica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 25, 1991
170 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Malvica

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT MALVICA, Respondent-Appellant; MID-ISLAND…

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

Date published: Feb 25, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

Lehman v. Piontkowski

Professional goodwill which is comprised of an element other than personal attributes of a professional…

DeAngelis v. AVC Services, Inc.

Here, the record does not show, nor did AVC's expert explain, the financial relationship between AVC and the…