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: C. Roger NIGGLI, Respondent, v. RICHLIN MACHINERY, INC., Appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of the books and records of the corporate respondent pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 624, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Emilio, J.), dated November 12, 1997, which granted the petition.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
Although the petitioner's common-law right, as a shareholder, to inspect the appellant's corporate books and records “is enforcible [sic] subject to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge” (Matter of Ochs v. Washington Hgts. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 17 N.Y.2d 82, 88, 268 N.Y.S.2d 294, 215 N.E.2d 485), such authority to inspect is qualified and can only be asserted where the shareholder is acting in good faith and has established that inspection is for a proper purpose (see, Matter of Crane Co. v. Anaconda Co., 39 N.Y.2d 14, 18, 382 N.Y.S.2d 707, 346 N.E.2d 507; Matter of Ochs v. Washington Hgts. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., supra). “Where a corporation raises a substantial question of fact concerning a petitioner's good faith and motives in seeking examination of the corporation's books and records, a hearing must be held to determine the petitioner's good faith” (Matter of De Paula v. Memory Gardens, 90 A.D.2d 886, 887, 456 N.Y.S.2d 522; see, Matter of Ochs v. Washington Hgts. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., supra; Matter of Wolberg v. Wolberg Elec. Supply Co., 72 A.D.2d 903, 422 N.Y.S.2d 178). In the instant case, the appellant raised a substantial question of fact concerning the petitioner's good faith and motive in seeking examination of its books and records. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing on this issue (see, Matter of Ochs v. Washington Hgts. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., supra; Matter of De Paula v. Memory Gardens, supra; Matter of Wolberg v. Wolberg Elec. Supply Co., supra).
MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT.
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 19, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)