Opinion
2019-10188 Index 63807/18
03-23-2022
In the Matter of Kevin O'Donnell, respondent, v. Fleetwood Park Corp., appellant.
Finger & Finger, White Plains, NY (Kenneth J. Finger of counsel), for appellant. Silverson, Pareres & Lombardi, LLP, White Plains, NY (Joseph C. Marchese of counsel), for respondent.
Finger & Finger, White Plains, NY (Kenneth J. Finger of counsel), for appellant.
Silverson, Pareres & Lombardi, LLP, White Plains, NY (Joseph C. Marchese of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P. REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production and inspection of certain books and records, Fleetwood Park Corp. appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (George E. Fufidio, Jr., J.), dated August 2, 2019. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of Fleetwood Park Corp., inter alia, to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granted, without a hearing, that branch of the petition which was to compel Fleetwood Park Corp. to provide an updated record of its shareholders' names and addresses.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"Under New York law, shareholders have both statutory and common-law rights to inspect a corporation's books and records so long as the shareholders seek the inspection in good faith and for a valid purpose" (Retirement Plan for Gen. Empls. of the City of N. Miami Beach v McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 1052, 1055; see World Ambulette Transp., Inc. v Lee, 161 A.D.3d 1028; Matter of Pokoik v 575 Realties, Inc., 143 A.D.3d 487). Here, the Supreme Court properly held that the petitioner established his common-law right to the information he sought from the appellant since he pleaded and proved that he had a proper purpose for seeking the information, and a hearing was not required since no substantial question of fact existed as to the petitioner's good faith and proper purpose (see Matter of Goldstein v Acropolis Gardens Realty Corp., 116 A.D.3d 776; Matter of Troccoli v L & B Contr., 259 A.D.2d 754; cf. JAS Family Trust v Oceana Holding Corp., 109 A.D.3d 639; Matter of Niggli v Richlin Mach., 257 A.D.2d 623; Matter of Marcato, 102 A.D.2d 826).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and FORD, JJ., concur.