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.
CHERRY GREEN PROPERTY CORP., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Florence WOLF, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 3, 2000, after a nonjury trial, insofar as appealed from, declaring that defendants shareholders' waiver of their right to dividends on their stock in plaintiff corporation is enforceable and binding on transferees of the shares, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendants' voluntary waiver of their right to share in plaintiff corporation's profits, in exchange for which defendants received a valuable contract to service plaintiff's real property, is enforceable. Nothing in Business Corporation Law § 501(c), which requires that each share of stock be equal to every other share of the same class, prohibits such a waiver, and no public policy is otherwise implicated. So long as there is no violation of public policy, a statutory right may be waived if made with knowledge of the right and the intention to waive it (see, People ex rel. McLaughlin v. Board of Police Commrs., 174 N.Y. 450, 456, 67 N.E. 78; Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co., 45 N.Y.2d 466, 469, 410 N.Y.S.2d 274, 382 N.E.2d 1136). Defendants' waiver is also binding on their transferees. The general rule is that in the absence of contrary provisions in the statute under which a corporation is organized or in its bylaws, a transferee of a corporation's shares takes with no greater rights and subject to the same liabilities as the transferor (see, Rochester & Kettle Falls Land Co. v. Raymond, 158 N.Y. 576, 582-583, 53 N.E. 507). We reject defendants' argument that the general rule does not apply where, as here, all shares are of the same class. Defendants' argument that their oral waiver is barred by the Statute of Frauds is not preserved for appellate review (see, Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v. Kellerman, 172 A.D.2d 307, 568 N.Y.S.2d 389, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 856, 574 N.Y.S.2d 937, 580 N.E.2d 409), and, we note, is based on a document not in evidence.
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 29, 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)