Glatzer v. Grossman, 47 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Glatzer v. Grossman, 47 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sawyer v. 1120 Fifth Ave. Corp. (nysupctnewyork, 2026-03-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sawyer v. 1120 Fifth Ave. Corp.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2026 · confidence medium
“To justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers” (Glatzer v Grossman, 47 AD3d 676, 677 [2d Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. Wynkoop
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, “[t]o justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers” (Glatzer v Grossman, 47 AD3d 676, 677 [2008]; see Bansbach v Zinn, 1 NY3d at 11 ; Marx v Akers, 88 NY2d at 199-200 ; Lewis v Akers, 227 AD2d at 596 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walsh v. Wwebnet, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, “[t]o justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers” (Glatzer v Grossman, 47 AD3d 676, 677 [2008]; see Bansbach v Zinn, 1 NY3d at 11 ; Marx v Akers, 88 NY2d at 199-200 ; Lewis v Akers, 227 AD2d at 596 ; see generally Tsutsui v Barasch, 67 AD3d 896, 898 [2009]; Malkinzon v Kordonsky, 56 AD3d at 735).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walsh v. Wwebnet, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, “[t]o justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers” (Glatzer v Grossman, 47 AD3d 676, 677 [2008]; see Bansbach v Zinn, 1 NY3d at 11 ; Marx v Akers, 88 NY2d at 199-200 ; Lewis v Akers, 227 AD2d at 596 ; see generally Tsutsui v Barasch, 67 AD3d 896, 898 [2009]; Malkinzon v Kordonsky, 56 AD3d at 735).
discussed Cited "see" Hamilton Partners, L.P. v. Englard (2×)
Del. Ch. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glatzer v. Grossman, 47 A.D.3d 676 , 849 N.Y.S.2d 300 (2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jay Glatzer
v.
Yitz Grossman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 15, 2008.
47 A.D.3d 676
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

In a shareholder derivative action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated September 18, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendants Murray Englard, Michael Nafash, Stuart Ehrlich, and Dennis[*677] M. O’Donnell, and the separate motion of the defendants Yitz Grossman and Emerald Asset Management, Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the complaint because of the plaintiffs failure to make a demand on the board of directors of New York Healthcare, Inc. (hereinafter NYHC), to rescind a settlement agreement with the defendants Yitz Grossman and Emerald Asset Management, Inc. (see Business Corporation Law § 626 [c]). To justify failure to make a demand, it is not sufficient to name a majority of the directors as defendants with conclusory allegations of wrongdoing or control by wrongdoers, as the plaintiff did here (cf. Bansbach v Zinn, 1 NY3d 1, 11 [2003]; Marx v Akers, 88 NY2d 189, 199-200 [1996]).

The court also correctly determined that the director defendants, Murray Englard, Michael Nafash, Stuart Ehrlich, and Dennis M. O’Donnell, are shielded from liability by the exculpatory provision included in NYHC’s certificate of incorporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 402 (b).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.