Legal Opinion
Herencia v. Centercut Restaurant Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 9, 2012PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Since the terms of the shareholders’ agreement were not met, the exercise of redemption rights by defendants was ineffectual (see Cho v 401-403 57th St. Realty Corp., 300 AD2d 174 [2002]; Tornick v Dinex Furniture Indus., 148 AD2d 602 [1989]; see also Stephenson v Drever, 16 Cal 4th 1167, 947 F2d 1301 [1997]; compare Gallagher v Lambert, 74 NY2d 562, 567 [1989]; Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d 183, 189 [1989]).
*486Under the terms of the agreement, defendants’ termination of plaintiff’s employment did not divest plaintiff of his status as a minority shareholder. Defendants, majority…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Gallagher v. LambertNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Cho v. 401-403 57th Street Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- MATTER OF WALDMAN v. Eldorado Towers, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- AQ Asset Management, LLC v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014