Opinion
February 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).
The IAS Court properly concluded that plaintiffs' claim under Business Corporation Law § 630 and the Collective Bargaining Agreement should not be subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. Because we agree that "termination of such services" under Business Corporation Law § 630 (a) should be construed as the termination of the employment relationship, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that the action was timely commenced (see, Burns v. Stento, 9 N.Y.S.2d 736).
Furthermore, we agree that defendant's claim that his liability is conclusively limited to debts incurred after July 20, 1990 cannot be decided on a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) because sufficient evidence to support this conclusion has not been presented at this stage in the litigation.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.