Legal Opinion

Miller v. Kastner

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

Decided March 6, 1984PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in this shareholder’s derivative action. The allegations in the complaint must be liberally construed (MacKay v Pierce, 86 AD2d 655). We conclude that plaintiff complied with subdivision (c) of section 626 of the Business Corporation Law by alleging with sufficient particularity that it would have been futile to attempt to secure the initiation of this action by the board of directors. The complaint shows that defendant, as majority stockholder, had power under…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barr v. WackmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. MacKay v. PierceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  3. Marco v. SachsNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  4. Marco v. SachsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
  5. Joseph v. Amrep Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Health-Loom Corp. v. Soho Plaza Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  2. Doe v. HeathAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  3. Owen v. HurlbutAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API