New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Business Corporation Law § 909 (2026)

Sale, lease, exchange or other disposition of assets

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 909. Sale, lease, exchange or other disposition of assets.
  (a) A sale, lease, exchange or other disposition of all or
substantially all the assets of a corporation, if not made in the usual
or regular course of the business actually conducted by such
corporation, shall be authorized only in accordance with the following
procedure:
  (1) The board shall authorize the proposed sale, lease, exchange or
other disposition and direct its submission to a vote of shareholders.
  (2) Notice of meeting shall be given to each shareholder of record,
whether or not entitled to vote.
  (3) The shareholders shall approve such sale, lease, exchange or other
disposition and may fix, or may authorize the board to fix, any of the
terms and conditions thereof and the consideration to be received by the
corporation therefor, which may consist in whole or in part of cash or
other property, real or personal, including shares, bonds or other
securities of any other domestic or foreign corporation or corporations,
by vote at a meeting of shareholders of (A) for corporations in
existence on the effective date of this clause the certificate of
incorporation of which expressly provides such or corporations
incorporated after the effective date of this clause, a majority of the
votes of all outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon or (B) for
other corporations in existence on the effective date of this clause,
two-thirds of the votes of all outstanding shares entitled to vote
thereon.
  (b) A recital in a deed, lease or other instrument of conveyance
executed by a corporation to the effect that the property described
therein does not constitute all or substantially all of the assets of
the corporation, or that the disposition of the property affected by
said instrument was made in the usual or regular course of business of
the corporation, or that the shareholders have duly authorized such
disposition, shall be presumptive evidence of the fact so recited.
  (c) An action to set aside a deed, lease or other instrument of
conveyance executed by a corporation affecting real property or real and
personal property may not be maintained for failure to comply with the
requirements of paragraph (a) unless the action is commenced and a
notice of pendency of action is filed within one year after such
conveyance, lease or other instrumment is recorded or within six months
after this subdivision takes effect, whichever date occurs later.
  (d) Whenever a transaction of the character described in paragraph (a)
involves a sale, lease, exchange or other disposition of all or
substantially all the assets of the corporation, including its name, to
a new corporation formed under the same name as the existing
corporation, upon the expiration of thirty days from the filing of the
certificate of incorporation of the new corporation, with the consent of
the state tax commission attached, the existing corporation shall be
automatically dissolved, unless, before the end of such thirty-day
period, such corporation has changed its name. The adjustment and
winding up of the affairs of such dissolved corporation shall proceed in
accordance with the provisions of article 10 (Non-judicial dissolution).
  (e) The certificate of incorporation of a corporation formed under the
authority of paragraph (d) shall set forth the name of the existing
corporation, the date when its certificate of incorporation was filed by
the department of state, and that the shareholders of such corporation
have authorized the sale, lease, exchange or other disposition of all or
substantially all the assets of such corporation, including its name, to
the new corporation to be formed under the same name as the existing
corporation.
  (f) Notwithstanding shareholder approval, the board may abandon the
proposed sale, lease, exchange or other disposition without further
action by the shareholders, subject to the rights, if any, of third
parties under any contract relating thereto.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Collins v. Telcoa Int'l Corp., 283 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001).
Collins v. Telcoa Int'l Corp., 283 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 4× “At issue on the instant appeal, inter alia, is whether a corporate shareholder may sue for money damages where the corporation sells all or substantially all of its assets, the sale is not made in the usual or regular course of business, the corporation fails to give the…”
Romanoff v. Romanoff, 2017 NY Slip Op 2385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from asserting a proposed cause of action under Business Corporation Law § 909 and Delaware General Corporation Law (Del Code Ann tit 8) § 271, as the issue of plaintiff’s standing to bring individual claims as *617 a shareholder was…”
In re the Dissolution of Bernfeld, 86 A.D.3d 244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 10× “In an order dated May 20, 2010, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no recourse to judicial dissolution under Business Corporation Law § 1103, noting that the express limitations of Business Corporation Law § 1511 restrict voting by nonprofessional transferees of…”
Posner v. Post Road Dev. Equity, L. L. C., 253 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · cites it 7× “In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 909 to set aside a conveyance of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.”
Woody's Lumber Co. v. Jayram Realty Corp., 30 A.D.3d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 3× “In connection with its argument that the contract for the sale of the subject real property was invalid under Business Corporation Law § 909, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the subject real property constituted “all or substantially all” of its assets (Business…”
Vig v. Deka Realty Corp., 143 A.D.2d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 3× “Business Corporation Law § 909 (a) provides, inter alia, that a sale of all or substantially all the assets of a corporation, if not made in the usual or regular course of the business actually conducted by the corporation, shall be authorized only by a vote of two thirds of all…”
Bear Pond Trail, LLC v. Am. Tree Co., 61 A.D.3d 1195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 7× “1 of a certain parcel of real property located in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County to defendant South Bay Realty, LLC 2 was void due to Stranahan Industries’ noncompliance with Business Corporation Law § 909, or if the statutory formalities were dispensed with as a result…”
Bouton v. Thomas Bros. Sales Corp., 179 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · cites it 4× “The defendants thereafter moved for summary judgment, and the Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the contracts of sale were unenforceable because they had not been approved by two-thirds of the corporation’s shareholders, as required by…”
Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP, 74 A.D.3d 1168 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, it sufficiently alleged Bashian’s deceit by asserting that he knowingly advised and counseled Lindsay in violating the Supreme Court’s injunction, in violating Business Corporation Law § 909 for failing to advise Kalish, the other…”
Fischer v. Sadov Realty Corp., 34 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “The Supreme Court properly determined that the statute of limitations contained in Business Corporation Law § 909 (c) does not apply to the plaintiffs third cause of action to cancel certain mortgages.”
Sardanis v. Sumitomo Corp., 282 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Despite finding “ample factual support” that the 1995 assignment failed to comply with Business Corporation Law §§ 909 and 713, a fact plaintiff did not dispute in his opposing papers, the IAS court denied summary judgment to defendants.”
Helfand v. Cohen, 110 A.D.2d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “The second cause of action alleged that the individual shareholders failed to comply with the requirements of Business Corporation Law § 909 in authorizing the proposed sale of Five Star’s only asset.”
— N.Y. Business Corporation Law § 909(a) — 5 cases
COR Mktg. & Sales, Inc. v. Greyhawk Corp., 994 F. Supp. 437 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
Edbar Corp. v. Sementilli, 2004 NY Slip Op 50068(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty. 2004).
M.L.C. Constr., Inc. v. Hui Ru Zhang, 2018 NY Slip Op 3932 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
St. Marks Assets, Inc. v. Sohayegh, 2018 NY Slip Op 8432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
Haruvi v. Hungerford, 2024 NY Slip Op 06154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024).
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.