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: Richard S. SIKORSKI, respondent; Electric Battery Corp., appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporations Law § 623 to determine the fair value of the petitioner's shares in the appellant corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated May 11, 2005, which denied the corporation's motion to dismiss the proceeding, and granted the petition to the extent of, inter alia, extending the petitioner's time to commence the present proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.
Although the appellant corporation's failure to include a copy of Business Corporations Law § 623 or its material terms with its notice of shareholders meeting excused the petitioner from the requirement of serving a notice of objection pursuant to Business Corporations Law § 623(a) (see Matter of Carroll v. Seacroft, Ltd., 141 A.D.2d 726, 727-728, 529 N.Y.S.2d 829), and thereby extended the petitioner's time to file an objection in accordance with Business Corporations Law § 623(c), the petitioner nevertheless failed to file a notice of election to dissent pursuant to Business Corporations Law § 623(c) (see Matter of McGowan v. Grand Is. Tr. Corp., 80 A.D.2d 731, 732, 437 N.Y.S.2d 158). Neither of the petitioner's letters, dated September 19, 2003, and September 25, 2003, respectively, demonstrate an unequivocal intention to dissent to the sale or a demand for the valuation of the petitioner's shares. Therefore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he assumed the status of dissenting shareholder contemplated by Business Corporations Law § 623(c). The petitioner failed to timely preserve his right to an appraisal of his shares of the appellant corporation. The Supreme Court erred in granting the petitioner additional time to commence the valuation proceeding, because absent proof of his status as a dissenting shareholder in compliance with Business Corporations Law § 623(c), he had no right to bring such a proceeding.
In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
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: June 06, 2006
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)