From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Torres v. Speiser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 11, 2000
268 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 11, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 24, 1998, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to his claim that the sale of his minority interest in defendant corporation to the individual defendant is invalid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Sandra D. Frelix for Plaintiff-Appellants.

George S. Locker for Defendants-Respondents.

WILLIAMS, J.P., MAZZARELLI, WALLACH, ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


There is no merit to plaintiff's argument that the sale of his stock is invalid under Business Corporation Law § 504 Bus. Corp. because the price of the stock was less than its par value and such defect could not be cured by the individual defendant's promises of future consideration. While section 504 prohibits an initial issuance of stock in a new corporation for less than par value or before the full purchase price is paid, it has no bearing on a re-sale of issued shares among shareholders, as occurred here (see, Vohra v. Prasad Realty Corp., 174 A.D.2d 735). Nor can summary judgment be granted to plaintiff on the ground that the individual defendant's promises to assist him in establishing a check cashing business in Puerto Rico that he was to manage, and to establish a corporation to own that business the stock of which was to be divided between himself and defendant in a "mutually acceptable manner", were material terms of his agreement to retransfer his stock that are so indefinite as not to be susceptible to enforcement, and that the entire transaction therefore was nothing more than an unenforceable agreement to agree. There are issues of fact in this regard as to partial performance of the purported agreement (see, R.G. Group v. Horn Hardart Co., 751 F.2d 69, 75-76; 1163 Realty Corp v. United Institutional Servicing Corp. 55 A.D.2d 908, 909; SNC, Ltd. v. Kamine Eng'g Mech. Contr. Co., 238 A.D.2d 146). We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.

Motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 and for other related relief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Torres v. Speiser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 11, 2000
268 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Torres v. Speiser

Case Details

Full title:RUBEN TORRES, et al., Plaintiff-Appellants, v. DEBRA J. SPEISER, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
701 N.Y.S.2d 360

Citing Cases

Ngo v. Ngo

Defendants claim plaintiff's deposition testimony admits that plaintiff paid no consideration for his…

Goldston v. Bandwidth

The former statute provides that "the judgment of the board or shareholders, as the case may be, as to the…