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.
PHYSICIANS' ONLINE, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Terrill Hill BURNETT, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered November 26, 1996, which granted plaintiff corporation's motion to renew its motion for summary judgment, and, upon renewal, granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff declaring that it validly terminated defendant as one of its officers and directors, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's motion to renew its prior motion for summary judgment was properly granted as an appropriate exercise of discretion on the ground that the prior order, issued by a different IAS court, “clearly invited a motion to renew” in stating that it could not be determined, “at this juncture”, whether plaintiff's bylaws had been validly amended so as to permit termination of officers and directors without cause, because of the omission from the record of the written consent of the requisite number of shareholders necessary to amend the bylaws (see, Pinto v. Pinto, 120 A.D.2d 337, 338, 501 N.Y.S.2d 835). Upon renewal, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly granted upon overwhelming evidence, uncontroverted by defendant, that plaintiff's bylaws were validly amended upon the written consent of the requisite number of shareholders, and that defendant's termination as both an officer and director of plaintiff was in accordance with the bylaws as amended. There is no merit to defendant's contention that summary judgment should be denied to allow further disclosure (see, Frierson v. Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 A.D.2d 609, 610, 592 N.Y.S.2d 309).
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: November 25, 1997
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)