New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Business Corporation Law § 619 (2026)

Powers of supreme court respecting elections

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 619. Powers of supreme court respecting elections.
  Upon the petition of any shareholder aggrieved by an election, and
upon notice to the persons declared elected thereat, the corporation and
such other persons as the court may direct, the supreme court at a
special term held within the judicial district where the office of the
corporation is located shall forthwith hear the proofs and allegations
of the parties, and confirm the election, order a new election, or take
such other action as justice may require.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Ronnen v. Ajax Elec. Motor Corp., 671 N.E.2d 534 (NY 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ronnen v. Ajax Elec. Motor Corp., 671 N.E.2d 534 (NY 1996). · cites it 2× “Norry then brought a proceeding, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619, to invalidate the election of directors in his absence and for an order directing a new election.”

Mobarak v. Mowad, 117 A.D.3d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “However, the plaintiff failed to commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge that election, which was his sole and exclusive remedy to challenge the election (see Business Corporation Law § 619; Esformes v Brinn, 52 AD3d 459, 462 [2008]).”

Sarantopoulos v. E-Z Cash ATM, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 2× “In an action to recover on promissory notes brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CFLR 3213, and a related hybrid proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619 to nullify a shareholder meeting held on March 14, 2004 and action for a…”

Rye Psychiatric Hosp. Ctr., Inc. v. Schoenholtz, 488 N.E.2d 63 (NY 1985). · cites it 2× “Subsequent to being notified of the results of the meetings held on November 12, 1982, petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619, seeking to nullify the respondents’ election of themselves as directors and then as officers of Rye Center.”

Esformes v. Brinn, 52 A.D.3d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “This Court has held, under the companion provision of the Business Corporation Law (see Business Corporation Law § 619), that such a special proceeding is the “exclusive method available to a shareholder to test the validity of an election of a director” (Chiulli v Reiter, 130…”

Heisler v. Gingras, 238 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · cites it 2× “), entered September 11, 1996 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619, granted petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and (2) from an order of said court, entered November 12, 1996 in Albany County, which denied a motion by…”

Lago v. 87-10 51st Avenue Owners Corp., 301 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 3× “—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619, inter alia, to invalidate a corporate election, the petitioner Nicholas Dovas appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.”

Stile v. Antico, 272 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “—In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619 to declare certain amendments to the bylaws of the respondent corporation which were adopted at a purported meeting of the Board of Directors on April 6, 1998, to be null and void, and to declare the…”

Cylich v. Riverbay Corp., 74 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “Petitioners, however, failed to notify the five people who were elected to the Board, as required by Business Corporation Law § 619, including the two individuals who were elected as a result of petitioners’ disqualification.”

Litas Investing Co. v. Vebeliunas, 148 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “However, the subsequent annual election by the shareholders on June 4th, which was not enjoined, is not contested by the plaintiffs and is properly before this court, resolved the issues in the action and rendered the issues previously raised academic (see, Business Corporation…”

People v. Delgado, 1 A.D.3d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “The authorization for such summary proceedings is now incorporated in Business Corporation Law § 619 (see Matter of Uranian Phalanstery 1st N.”

Jazwinski v. Just. Ct. Mut. Hous. Coop., 2025 NY Slip Op 50282(U) (N.Y. Sup. Queens 2025). · cites it 4× “The following numbered papers read on the application by the petitioners, brought by order to show cause pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619, for an order, among other things, declaring that the October 10, 2023, election of the Board of Directors of the respondent…”

Show all 39 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.