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.
Ruben TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Debra J. SPEISER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered December 24, 1998, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to his claim that the sale of his minority interest in defendant corporation to the individual defendant is invalid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There is no merit to plaintiff's argument that the sale of his stock is invalid under Business Corporation Law § 504 because the price of the stock was less than its par value and such defect could not be cured by the individual defendant's promises of future consideration. While section 504 prohibits an initial issuance of stock in a new corporation for less than par value or before the full purchase price is paid, it has no bearing on a re-sale of issued shares among shareholders, as occurred here (see, Vohra v. Prasad Realty Corp., 174 A.D.2d 735, 571 N.Y.S.2d 768). Nor can summary judgment be granted to plaintiff on the ground that the individual defendant's promises to assist him in establishing a check cashing business in Puerto Rico that he was to manage, and to establish a corporation to own that business the stock of which was to be divided between himself and defendant in a “mutually acceptable manner”, were material terms of his agreement to retransfer his stock that are so indefinite as not to be susceptible to enforcement, and that the entire transaction therefore was nothing more than an unenforceable agreement to agree. There are issues of fact in this regard as to partial performance of the purported agreement (see, R.G. Group v. Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F.2d 69, 75-76; 1163 Realty Corp. v. United Institutional Servicing Corp. 55 A.D.2d 908, 909, 390 N.Y.S.2d 453; SNC, Ltd. v. Kamine Eng'g & Mech. Contr. Co., 238 A.D.2d 146, 655 N.Y.S.2d 47). We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
Motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 and for other related relief denied.
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: January 11, 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)