Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ruttenberg v. Davidge Data Systems Corp.

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

Decided May 11, 1995Published

1Dissent

Murphy, P. J., and Asch, J., dissent in a memorandum by Murphy, P. J., as follows:

On the well reasoned opinion of Schackman, J., I would affirm. The purpose of the agreement clearly was to enable the stockholders of defendant closed corporation to retain control, a fact reflected in the "whereas” clause, declaring that "the Stockholders and the Corporation believe that it is in their best interests to provide for certain restrictions on the transfer of the stock of the Corporation now held by them or to be issued to them in the future”. Not only is the transfer of shares, by any means,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sutton v. East River Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. BT Commercial Corp. v. BlumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API