Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Donald GINSBERG, as Executor of Robert L. Ginsberg, Deceased, and on Behalf of PALACE MANAGEMENT INC., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. John M. RUDEY, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent,
Garrin Properties, Inc., et al., Defendants. John M. Rudey, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Donald Ginsberg, Defendant-Respondent-Respondent, Palace Management Inc., et al., Defendants.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered June 15, 2000, which, in a derivative action, inter alia, directed defendant Rudey to return to Palace Management Inc. moneys he misappropriated from it, removed Rudey as an officer and director of Palace Management and Buena Vista Investment Corp., sanctioned Rudey $10,000, and awarded attorneys' fees of $30,000 to plaintiff estate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The trial court properly precluded Rudey from offering evidence of, or conducting cross-examination concerning, plaintiff executor Ginsberg's alleged mishandling of plaintiff estate as irrelevant to the issue at trial, namely, whether Rudey, Ginsberg or both breached fiduciary duties owing to Palace Management and Buena Vista Investment Corp. Rudey's contention that the award of attorneys' fees was improper under Florida Statutes § 607.07401(6) is raised for the first time in his reply brief, and we decline to consider it. In any event, under Florida law, an award of attorneys' fees is within the court's discretion if the right vindicated by the derivative suit inheres primarily in the corporation and not the shareholders as individuals (see, Lane v. Head, 566 So.2d 508, 510). Here, the right vindicated is clearly that of Palace Management to the funds improperly used by Rudey to pay legal fees he incurred in furtherance of his own self-interest in a family dispute over the distribution of the sales proceeds of a family-owned business. The record does not support Ginsberg's contention that he requested a hearing on attorneys' fees. We have considered and rejected the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 01, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)