Carroll v. Seacroft Plaza, Ltd.

Decision Date20 June 1988
Citation141 A.D.2d 724,529 N.Y.S.2d 588
PartiesIn the Matter of William CARROLL, Respondent, v. SEACROFT PLAZA, LTD., Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, Riverhead (Maureen T. Liccione, of counsel), for appellant.

McNulty, DiPietro & Spiess, Riverhead (James Spiess, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, WEINSTEIN and BALLETTA, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 623 to determine the fair value of the petitioner's shares in Seacroft Plaza, Ltd., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated February 3, 1987, which denied the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and Business Corporation Law §§ 623 and 910 to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to dismiss. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action each fact alleged must be assumed to be true and the petition or complaint liberally construed in the plaintiff's favor ( see, Barr v. Wackman, 36 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 368 N.Y.S.2d 497, 329 N.E.2d 180; MacKay v. Pierce, 86 A.D.2d 655, 446 N.Y.S.2d 403). In the instant case, as the Supreme Court noted, the principal facts are uncontested.

The record reveals that the petitioner, Richard J. Cron, and Joseph E. Nolan were equal shareholders in a corporation which was formed to acquire and develop a 7.1-acre parcel of land located in Southold. Each shareholder contributed $12,503.14 toward the purchase price of the property. Subsequently the petitioner objected to the amount of certain development fees the corporation was paying and refused to make any further contributions.

Mr. Cron and Mr. Nolan increased their contributions to compensate for the shortfall created by the petitioner's refusal to pay, but eventually they could not afford to continue. Attempts to refinance the property's mortgage were unsuccessful, and the other shareholders decided to recapitalize the corporation.

A special shareholders' meeting was scheduled for July 29, 1985. The notice of the meeting which was sent to the petitioner contained three proposals. The first was to increase the aggregate number of shares from 200 to 1,000. This was done so there would be enough shares to reflect the contributions Mr. Cron and Mr. Nolan had made to the corporation to make up for the petitioner's deficit. The second was to restrict the sale of stock, and the third was to amend the by-laws to permit ratification by a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Maurillo v. Park Slope U-Haul
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 27, 1993
    ...be assumed to be true (see, Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970; Matter of Carroll v. Seacroft Plaza, 141 A.D.2d 724, 529 N.Y.S.2d 588). Contrary to the plaintiffs' arguments, the issue on this appeal is not whether the counterclaims seek indemnifi......
  • Celauro v. 4C Foods Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 5, 2012
    ...rights to purchase enough of the shares to retain his or her percentage in the corporation ( Matter of Carroll v. Seacroft Plaza, 141 A.D.2d 724, 725–726, 529 N.Y.S.2d 588 [2d Dept.1988] ); (5) an amendment that, among other things, reduced the par value of preferred stock from $100 to $1 a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT