Opinion ID: 1926607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Aurora Stock Claimed By Bykofsky

Text: Aurora asserts that Bykofsky owns no Aurora stock; that the statute of frauds defeats his claim; and that Aurora was not authorized to issue stock in excess of the shares permitted to be distributed under its Articles of Incorporation. [9] Bykofsky relies on Aurora's audited financial statements and the testimony of members of the Board of Directors to support the jury's special finding that he owns twenty-three shares of Aurora stock. He also maintains that Aurora improperly retained his stock certificate when the corporation locked him out of his office, and that both the issues relating to the statute of frauds and the issuance of stock in excess of that authorized, were not presented to the trial court. We agree that the issue pertaining to the statute of frauds was not presented to the trial court, and thus, may not be considered by this court. See Miller, supra ; D.D., supra . With respect to the question of the issuance of stock in excess of the corporation's authority, however, this matter was raised after the jury's verdict. The trial court reminded counsel that testimony had been introduced at trial as to the proper alignment of stock. Our review of the record shows that Aurora filed federal corporation income tax returns during the period 1985 through 1993. Each of these returns reflected Aurora's stock ownership consistently as: Walker  51%; Statman  26%; and Bykofsky  23%. In addition, Aurora's 1993 application to Citibank set forth the same percentages for the company's stock ownership. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Bykofsky, as we must under Durphy, supra, the jury had a basis for awarding twenty-three shares of Aurora stock to Bykofsky. We see no reason to disturb the trial court's judgment as to this award.