Legal Opinion

Elniski v. Niagara Falls Coach Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 28, 2012No. Appeal No. 1Published

1Opinion of the Court

*1723We reject petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred in setting the terms and conditions of the transfer of her shares. A trial court has discretion in setting the terms and conditions by which the shares of a minority shareholder are transferred in these circumstances, such as by establishing a payment schedule or by requiring that a bond or other acceptable security instrument be posted (see Matter of Cortland MHP Assoc. [Petralia — Burnham], 267 AD2d 1013, 1013-1014 [1999]; Matter of Penepent Corp. [appeal No. 11], 198 AD2d 782, 783 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 797 [1994]; Matter of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Matter of Seagroatt Floral Co. Inc.(riccardi)New York Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. Siegel v. SiegelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  3. In re the Dissolution of Seagroatt Floral Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  4. Stolow v. StolowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  5. Stolow v. StolowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API