Rubinstein v. Catacosinos

• Decision Date: 23 November 1983
• Citation: Rubinstein v. Catacosinos, 470 N.Y.S.2d 570, 60 N.Y.2d 890 (N.Y. 1983)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 458 N.E.2d 1247 Dianne RUBINSTEIN, Appellant, v. William J. CATACOSINOS et al., Respondents.

Page 570

470 N.Y.S.2d 570

60 N.Y.2d 890, 458 N.E.2d 1247

Dianne RUBINSTEIN, Appellant, v.William J. CATACOSINOS et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 23, 1983.

[60 N.Y.2d 892] Irving Bizar and Andrea R. Cohen, New York City, for appellant.

Alan R. Wentzel and Stephen J. King, New York City, for William J. Catacosinos and others, respondents.

Franklyn D. Kimball and W. Foster Wollen, New York City, for Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Samuel J. Silverman at the Appellate Division, 91 A.D.2d 445, 459 N.Y.S.2d 286.

In so ruling, we deem it necessary to add the following comments.First, section 906 of the Business Corporation Law is not one of the enumerated laws specifically applicable to foreign corporations doing business in New York (Business Corporation Law, § 1319, subd. [a] ).Second, inasmuch as it is concluded that plaintiff had no standing to continue this shareholder's degnvative action, there is no occasion to decide whether liability for insider trading may be imposed against nonparticipating but acquiescing directors (cf.Diamond v. Oreamuno, 24 N.Y.2d 494, 301 N.Y.S.2d 78, 248 N.E.2d 910, affg.29...