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.
IN RE: Application of Yoav BITTER, Petitioner-Appellant, For the Judicial Dissolution of Tower Hill Securities, Inc., Respondent-Respondent. Pursuant to BCL § 1104-a.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered July 26, 1999, dismissing petitioner's application for judicial dissolution of the subject corporation, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 1, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Petitioner, one of three shareholders in the subject corporation who owns 25% of its stock, fails to show that the conduct of the other two shareholders defeated any of his expectations that, objectively viewed, were reasonable under the circumstances (see, Matter of Kemp & Beatley [Gardstein], 64 N.Y.2d 63, 73, 484 N.Y.S.2d 799, 473 N.E.2d 1173). Petitioner, who had been employed by the corporation for less than two years in a nonmanagerial, at-will position (compare, e.g., Matter of Williamson, Picket, Gross [Williamson], 259 A.D.2d 362, 687 N.Y.S.2d 53), could not have had any reasonable expectations of job security or of a right to participate in the corporation's management in view of the shareholders' agreement of April 13, 1998. That agreement was a preliminary arrangement that noted the corporation's recent acquisition by petitioner and the other two shareholders, made all matters of corporate governance subject to an affirmative vote of other two shareholders and gave the latter the right to repurchase petitioner's shares at their initial purchase price if petitioner did not agree to terms to be set forth in a so-called definitive agreement. In effect, the period between the preliminary and definitive agreements was a trial period during which the other two shareholders were to decide whether they wanted to pursue the venture with petitioner as a participant, and, if so, on what terms. They offered petitioner terms, petitioner rejected them, and now they have the right to repurchase petitioner's shares (see, Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, 73 N.Y.2d 183, 538 N.Y.S.2d 771, 535 N.E.2d 1311; Branciforte v. Levey, 222 A.D.2d 276, 635 N.Y.S.2d 22).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: March 14, 2000
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)