Case Name: Anthony N. Macaluso, Sr., a 50% Shareholder of S&M Heating Corp., Suing in the Right of S&M Heating Corp., Appellant, v. Joseph Macaluso, as Executor of Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-09-10
Citations: 120 A.D.3d 1205
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anthony N. Macaluso, Sr., a 50% Shareholder of S&M Heating Corp., Suing in the Right of S&M Heating Corp., Appellant, v Joseph Macaluso, as Executor of Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Rivera, J.P, Hall, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 1205–1205

Head Matter:
Anthony N. Macaluso, Sr., a 50% Shareholder of S&M Heating Corp., Suing in the Right of S&M Heating Corp., Appellant, v Joseph Macaluso, as Executor of Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
[991 NYS2d 772]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 716 to remove Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., as an officer and director of the defendant S&M Heating Corp., the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated October 2, 2012, as denied his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment entered October 20, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 18, 2010, was in favor of the defendant Joseph Macaluso, as executor of the estate of Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., and against him individually, on the ground that it was entered against an improper party.
Ordered that the order dated October 2, 2012 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Where there is no legal or equitable basis to enter a judgment against a particular party, such judgment must be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) (see Mazelier v 634 W. 135, LLC, 22 AD3d 361, 364 [2005]). Here, however, the judgment entered October 20, 2010 was properly issued, pursuant to an order dated June 18, 2010, against the plaintiff individually, as a remedy for the plaintiffs failure to comply with his personal obligations under the parties' stipulation of settlement. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, while he may have commenced this action "in the right of S&M Heating Corp.," the record is clear that the corporation was not a party to the stipulation. Rather, the agreement, which was placed on the record in open court, provided that the plaintiff would discontinue the action and would receive certain benefits from, and undertake certain obligations to, his late brother, Santo F. Macaluso, Jr. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment.
Rivera, J.P, Hall, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.