TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Abrams v. Donati

Harry Abrams v. Enrico Donati

Abrams v. Donati, 108 A.D.2d 704 (1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 28, 1985
Citations
108 A.D.2d 704485 N.Y.S.2d 10121985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43040

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered on January 10, 1984, *705 which denied the motion by defendant Enrico Donati for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directing an immediate trial for the assessment of damages on his counterclaim, is modified, on the law, and the motion granted to the extent of dismissing the first cause of action as to defendant Donati and directing an immediate trial for the assessment of damages on his counterclaim, and otherwise affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The first cause of action alleges the existence of a conspiracy among the shareholders of defendant Donrico, Inc., and a company called The Plate Shop, Inc., to depreciate the value of stock owned by plaintiff Harry Abrams in Donrico and that as a result of defendants’ wrongful acts, plaintiff’s stock interest was thereby diminished. However, the law is clear that an “individual shareholder has no right to bring an action in his own name and in his own behalf for a wrong committed against the corporation.” (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Kalkstein, 101 AD2d 102, 106 .) Since the assertion that defendants conspired to and did, in fact, depress the value of Donrico shares sets forth a wrong against the corporation, this claim belongs to the corporation and should be brought as a derivative suit. (Strain v Seven Hills Assoc., 75 AD2d 360 ; Carpenter v Sisti, 45 AD2d 529 .) Consequently, the first cause of action against defendant Enrico Donati, one of the shareholders of Donrico, should have been dismissed. In view of the fact that the first cause of action is the only part of the complaint which seeks recovery against Donati personally, he is entitled to an immediate trial for the assessment of damages on the counterclaim for which he has already been granted partial summary judgment. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 21996: 12004: 12011: 119922026peak 1992 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward County Farm Bureau2004 ND 60, 676 N.W.2d 752
  2. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Namrod Development Corp.140 B.R. 56 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
  3. Smerling Enterprises, Inc. v. Goldstein184 A.D.2d 480 (1992)
  4. Bouhayer v. Georgalis169 Misc. 2d 779 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996)
  5. Rafiy v. Javaheri32 Misc. 3d 734 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

Most recent

  1. Rafiy v. Javaheri32 Misc. 3d 734 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)
  2. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward County Farm Bureau2004 ND 60, 676 N.W.2d 752
  3. Bouhayer v. Georgalis169 Misc. 2d 779 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996)
  4. Smerling Enterprises, Inc. v. Goldstein184 A.D.2d 480 (1992)
  5. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Namrod Development Corp.140 B.R. 56 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Strain v. Seven Hills Associates, 75 A.D.2d 360 (1980) 39
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kalkstein, 101 A.D.2d 102 (1984) 25
Carpenter v. Sisti, 45 A.D.2d 529 (1974) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list