Case ID: ad3d_134/html/0450-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Judicial Dissolution under Section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law of The Klein Law Group, P.C. David Klein, Appellant; Susan Klein, Respondent.
    [19 NYS3d 748]
   Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered March 10, 2015, which, respectively, denied the petition for judicial dissolution of respondent law firm, and granted the motion to deny the petition and denied the remaining issues as moot, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“The ultimate remedy of dissolution and forced sale of corporate assets should only be applied as a last resort” (Matter of 168 1/2 Delancey Corp., 174 AD2d 523, 526 [1st Dept 1991]). Accordingly, the motion court providently exercised its discretion when it denied the petition for dissolution of the subject corporation (Business Corporation Law § 1111 [a]). The areas of dissension, as alleged in the petition and affidavits, do not impede the ability of the firm to function effectively (see Molod v Berkowitz, 233 AD2d 149, 149 [1st Dept 1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1029 [1997]). Nor did the motion court abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petition at the pleading stage, as “[a] hearing is only required where there is some contested issue determinative of the validity of the application” (Matter of Gordon & Weiss, 32 AD2d 279, 280 [1st Dept 1969]). Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.