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. 1PublishedCited by 5 opinions
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
- Matter of Seagroatt Floral Co. Inc.(riccardi)New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Siegel v. SiegelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- In re the Dissolution of Seagroatt Floral Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Stolow v. StolowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- 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.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Meabon v. Town of PolandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Elniski v. Niagara Falls Coach Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Elniski v. Niagara Falls Coach Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Harris v. Rome Mem. Hosp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Meabon v. Town of PolandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013