From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re USA Nutritionals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04856, 2003-04627, 2003-04628

Argued June 3, 2003.

June 23, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a for the judicial dissolution of a closely-held corporation, where there has been an election to purchase the shares owned by the petitioner, Lawrence Sayage, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1118, Gary Harlem, Body Breakthrough, Inc., Corey Lichter, and USA Nutritionals, Inc., appeal from (1) a Referee's report dated November 26, 2001, made after a hearing, (2) an undated decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), and (3) an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, entered April 24, 2002, which, upon the decision, inter alia, granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the Referee's report, denied their cross motion to reject the Referee's report, and is in favor of the petitioner and against them in the principal sum of $333,802.

Schneider, Goldstein Bloomfield, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Donald F. Schneider and Harvey N. Goldstein of counsel), for appellants.

Shatz Meier Franzino Scher, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven K. Meier of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the Referee's report is dismissed (see CPLR 5701[a][2]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioner.

The determination of a fact-finder as to the value of a business, if it is within the range of testimony presented, will not be disturbed on appeal where the valuation rests primarily on the credibility of the expert witnesses and their valuation techniques (see Collision Depot v. Zigman, 294 A.D.2d 497, 498; Matter of Davis v. Alpha Packaging Indus., 267 A.D.2d 384; Dempster v. Dempster, 236 A.D.2d 582). Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court's determination as to the fair value of the petitioner's shares of stock in the subject corporation is supported by the evidence (see Matter of Davis v. Alpha Packaging Indus., supra).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re USA Nutritionals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In re USA Nutritionals, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF USA NUTRITIONALS, INC. LAWRENCE SAYAGE, respondent; GARY…

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

Date published: Jun 23, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
761 N.Y.S.2d 524

Citing Cases

Wright v. Irish

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. "The determination of a fact-finder as to the value of a…

Ruggiero v. Ruggiero

The plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as awarded her that amount, arguing that the court's…