Malkinzon v. Kordonsky
| Decision Date | 25 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-06945 |
| Citation | 868 N.Y.S.2d 123,2008 NY Slip Op 09365,56 A.D.3d 734 |
| Parties | BORIS MALKINZON et al., Respondents, v. MICHAEL KORDONSKY et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs, shareholders of Dial Car, Inc. (hereinafter Dial), commenced the instant shareholders' derivative action against Dial and the individual directors of Dial's Board of Directors (hereinafter the Board). The plaintiffs alleged that the Board breached its fiduciary duty to Dial by engaging, inter alia, in fraud, coercion, extortion, threats, and conversion against Dial and its shareholders. The plaintiffs alleged that the Board, among other things, demanded illegal kickbacks from its shareholders and third-party vendors, skimmed corporate funds, and falsified grievances against shareholders who disagreed with their tactics.
The Board moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and 3013 and Business Corporation Law § 626 (c) to dismiss the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity why it would have been futile to secure the initiation of the action through the Board. In a shareholders' derivative action a complaint must set forth with particularity the plaintiff's efforts to secure the initiation of such action by the board of directors or the reasons for not making such effort (see Business Corporation Law § 626 [c]). "Demand is futile, and excused, when the directors are incapable of making an impartial decision as to whether to bring suit" (Bansbach v Zinn, 1 NY3d 1, 9 [2003]).
Here, the plaintiffs alleged particularized facts in their amended complaint that each member of the Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. Wwebnet, Inc.
...efforts ... to secure the initiation of such action by the board or the reasons for not making such effort” ( see Malkinzon v. Kordonsky, 56 A.D.3d 734, 735, 868 N.Y.S.2d 123;Lewis v. Akers, 227 A.D.2d 595, 596, 644 N.Y.S.2d 279). Here, because the plaintiffs conceded that they made no dema......
-
Minico Ins. Agency, LLC v. Ajp Contracting Corp., 2017–09113
...over AJP in order to commit a wrong against the plaintiff that resulted in injury to the plaintiff (see Love v. Rebecca Dev., Inc., 56 A.D.3d at 734, 868 N.Y.S.2d 125 ). We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the third cause of......
-
Mason-Mahon v. Flint
...N.Y.3d 1, 9, 769 N.Y.S.2d 175, 801 N.E.2d 395 ; see Walsh v. Wwebnet, Inc., 116 A.D.3d at 846, 984 N.Y.S.2d 100 ; Malkinzon v. Kordonsky, 56 A.D.3d 734, 735, 868 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). The plaintiff may satisfy this standard by alleging with particularity (1) that a majority of the board of direct......
-
Taylor v. Wynkoop
...effort” (Business Corporation Law § 626[c] ; see Walsh v. Wwebnet, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 845, 846, 984 N.Y.S.2d 100 ; Malkinzon v. Kordonsky, 56 A.D.3d 734, 735, 868 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; Lewis v. Akers, 227 A.D.2d 595, 596, 644 N.Y.S.2d 279 ). Such “[d]emand is futile, and excused, when the directors ......