valuation hearing in New York

2008After AVC elected to purchase the petitioner’s shares of stock in the corporation (hereinafter the shares) (see Business Corporation Law § 1118 [a]), a valuation hearing was held before a judicial hearing officer (hereinafter JHO) to determine their fair value (see Matter of Penepent Corp., 96 NY2d 186 [2001]).

2002After Veteo elected to purchase Wolk’s shares (see, Business Corporation Law § 1118 [a]), a valuation hearing was held before a Referee to determine the fair value of the shares (see, Matter of Penepent Corp., 96 NY2d 186 ).

2018Although New York has not adopted the RUPA, "[l]egislative inaction is a weak reed upon which to lean in determining legislative intent" ( Flanagan v. Mount Eden General Hospital , 24 N.Y.2d 427 , 433, 301 N.Y.S.2d 23 , 248 N.E.2d 871 [1969] ).

2018Although New York has not adopted the RUPA, "[l]egislative inaction is a weak reed upon which to lean in determining legislative intent" ( Flanagan v. Mount Eden General Hospital , 24 N.Y.2d 427 , 433, 301 N.Y.S.2d 23 , 248 N.E.2d 871 [1969] ).

2002Under the circumstances, the Referee providently exercised his discretion in his determination, in essence, that Wolk’s expert appraiser, Douglas Land, compared Veteo to other corporations which were not in “similar * * * financial situations” (Matter of Blake v Blake Agency, 107 AD2d 139, 147 ).

1999Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as no appeal lies as of right from an order directing a hearing to aid in the disposition of the motion (see, CPLR 5701; Bagdy v Progresso Foods Corp., 86 AD2d 589 ), and leave has not been granted; and it is further, Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed; and it is further, Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

1996As Hayes cannot be characterized as one of the parties listed in SCPA 2110, services rendered on his behalf are not compensable from estate funds (compare, Matter of Smolley, 188 AD2d 535, 537-538 [attorney for executor]; Matter of Kaplan, 168 AD2d 622 [attorney for beneficiary]; Matter of Burns, 126 AD2d 809 [attorney for beneficiary]).

1996As Hayes cannot be characterized as one of the parties listed in SCPA 2110, services rendered on his behalf are not compensable from estate funds (compare, Matter of Smolley, 188 AD2d 535, 537-538 [attorney for executor]; Matter of Kaplan, 168 AD2d 622 [attorney for beneficiary]; Matter of Burns, 126 AD2d 809 [attorney for beneficiary]).

1994We find that the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion, as the Village failed to serve a 90-day demand to resume prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (see, Cohn v Borchard Affiliations, 25 NY2d 237 ; Flushing Natl.

1991However, no evidence was presented establishing its fair market value at the time of the commencement of this action, the appropriate valuation standard (see, Lord v Lord, 124 AD2d 930, 932 ; Brennan v Brennan, 103 AD2d 48 ).

1991However, no evidence was presented establishing its fair market value at the time of the commencement of this action, the appropriate valuation standard (see, Lord v Lord, 124 AD2d 930, 932 ; Brennan v Brennan, 103 AD2d 48 ).

1991We reject, however, plaintiff’s belated attempt on the present appeal to relitigate the November 12, 1987 determination of this Court that the parties’ Bayard Street cooperative apartment constituted a marital asset for inclusion in the defendant’s equitable distribution award (Shen v Jen, 134 AD2d 182 , supra).

1991Here, where the record establishes that there was a marked appreciation in the value of the property between the time of trial and the date of sale by the plaintiff, and that the date of sale occurred shortly before the valuation hearing directed by this Court, we find that the trial court utilized the fairest date in fixing the value of the parties’ marital property (Patelunas v Patelunas, 139 AD2d 883, 884 ).

1916The valuation clause in these agreements is considered merely as indicating to the shipper his right to a choice; and in Cincinnati & Texas Pacific Railway v. Rankin ( 241 U. S. 319 ) the opinion reads: “The essential choice of rates must be made to appear before a carrier can successfully claim the benefit of such a limitation and relief from full liability.

1915Such exemption is not permissible under the Federal rule (Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 ), by which this case must be determined, as the shipment was interstate.