Ahmed v. Corines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahmed v. Corines

265 A.D.2d 266, 697 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10885

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 266 (Ahmed v. Corines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmed v. Corines, 265 A.D.2d 266, 697 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about November 1, 1993, which, inter alia, directed the temporary Referee to close the subject medical practice and marshal its assets, whether held nominally by the corporation or by either of the parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s direction to the Referee to close the medical practice and marshal all of its assets, including assets owned nominally by either of the parties, was proper in light of the acrimony of the parties’ dispute, and the fact that the principal issue in the underlying action is ownership of the subject practice’s assets, which assets include much more than the one asset, the lease, held in the professional corporation’s name. To the extent that plaintiff-appellant is entitled to any relief, such relief would be properly obtained through an expeditious resolution of the underlying action. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about November 1, 1993, which, inter alia, directed the temporary Referee to close the subject medical practice and marshal its assets, whether held nominally by the corporation or by either of the parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s direction to the Referee to close the medical practice and marshal all of its assets, including assets owned nominally by either of the parties, was proper in light of the acrimony of the parties’ dispute, and the fact that the principal issue in the underlying action is ownership of the subject practice’s assets, which assets include much more than the one asset, the lease, held in the professional corporation’s name. To the extent that plaintiff-appellant is entitled to any relief, such relief would be properly obtained through an expeditious resolution of the underlying action. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 266, 697 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-corines-nyappdiv-1999.