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.
Jean E. SEALEY, D.Sc., et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HYPERTENSION, INC., Respondent-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered November 14, 2005, which granted the petition, nullified the revised bylaws adopted at the May 17, 2005 meeting of respondent Society, and enjoined the Society from exercising any powers or taking any action pursuant to such revised bylaws relating to the removal of officers and directors of the Society (specifically, that would remove petitioner Sealey from her position as an officer or director, or deprive petitioners Alderman or Laragh of their rights as voting ex officio members of the board of directors), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly determined that a quorum consisting of a majority of respondent Society's members was necessary to amend its bylaws (N-PCL 608 [a] ). The quorum provision in the revised bylaws was inconsistent with statutory requirements, and thus null and void (see e.g. Blanc v. Windham Mtn. Club, 92 A.D.2d 529, 459 N.Y.S.2d 447 [1983] ). Since less than a quorum was present at the May 2005 annual meeting, the vote to amend the bylaws was also null and void (see e.g. Matter of Sousa v. New York State Council Knights of Columbus Found., 10 N.Y.2d 68, 217 N.Y.S.2d 58, 176 N.E.2d 77 [1961] ). Furthermore, the Society was founded in 1986, so it may not avail itself of the one-time use of N-PCL 608(c) to amend its bylaws by utilizing the quorum rules of the former Membership Corporation Law.
Since the proposed new bylaws were invalid, all actions taken pursuant to them with regard to removing petitioners from the Society's board of directors were invalid, and the court properly directed that petitioners be reinstated.
We have considered the Society's remaining arguments and find them without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 21, 2006
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)