From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Boxley v. Chalpin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 17, 1990
163 A.D.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 17, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Dontzin, J.).


Petitioners sought a declaration that the Rhythm Method Enterprises, Ltd. (RME) shareholders' agreement and the personal service contract between RME and the artists of the musical rap group "Public Enemy" were invalid as attorney-client transactions. Petitioners further sought a declaration that the various contracts between RME and the artists it represented were terminated upon judicial dissolution of that corporation. Petitioners appeal from the denial of their applications and from the award of legal fees to counsel for the receiver appointed by the court to wind up the corporation's affairs.

The record reveals that the IAS court properly refused to set aside the RME shareholders' agreement dated February 16, 1987 and its contracts with the artists of "Public Enemy". Whether the agreements sought to be invalidated were "attorney-client transactions" and whether they were entered into by petitioners as a result of improper inducements wherein respondent Skoler, as petitioners' attorney, "'got the better of the bargain'" (Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86, 92; Howard v. Murray, 43 N.Y.2d 417, 422) are substantial factual issues not amenable to resolution upon a motion.

Contrary to petitioners' assertions, the management, production and publishing contracts between RME and its individual artists, including "Public Enemy", were assignable to third parties according to their express provisions. Therefore, they were not terminated by the judicial dissolution of RME (Business Corporation Law § 1005 [a] [2]; Paige v. Faure, 229 N.Y. 114, 118; Matter of Rodgers v. Logan, 121 A.D.2d 250, 252; Seligman Latz v. Noonan, 201 Misc. 96, 98; 3 Williston, Contracts § 423 [3d ed]).

Finally, the legal fees awarded by the IAS court to the law firm representing the court-appointed receiver were within the guidelines established in Matter of Ronan Paint Corp. ( 98 A.D.2d 413). Consequently, the award did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Concur — Ross, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Boxley v. Chalpin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 17, 1990
163 A.D.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Boxley v. Chalpin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAMES H. BOXLEY et al., Appellants, v. EDWARD CHALPIN et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 17, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
559 N.Y.S.2d 638