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: KAMLEH S. TEHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT J. TEHAN, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. TEHAN'S CATALOG SHOWROOMS, INC., RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner, in her capacity as the executor of the estate of her husband (decedent), commenced this proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104–a seeking, inter alia, a determination that she is the owner of shares in respondent corporation held by decedent at the time of his death and dissolution of respondent. As relevant on appeal, Supreme Court denied that part of respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition based on petitioner's lack of standing (see CPLR 3211[a][3]; 3212), without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the court properly denied respondent's motion to that extent. There are issues of fact whether and to what extent the parties performed their obligations under the applicable shareholders' agreement or whether the parties elected to abandon that agreement (see Carver v. Apple Rubber Prods. Corp., 163 A.D.2d 849, 850; Staebell v. Bennie, 83 A.D.2d 765, 765–766; see generally CPLR 3212[f] ). Finally, respondent's contention that the court should have conducted an immediate trial pursuant to CPLR 3212(c) to resolve all issues related to standing is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore not properly before us (see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 13–00429
Decided: October 04, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)