Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co.

273 A.D. 755, 75 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 755 (Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co.) 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

Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co., 273 A.D. 755, 75 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

'Plaintiffs are not in position to question the fairness of the merger plan, either as allegedly depriving them of elements of value pertaining to their shares of stock by reason of the matters alleged in the complaints, or otherwise, after having accepted payment for their shares at the $135 provided by the plan, or in the amount arrived at by the appraisers. They could not accept the benefit of the merger plan and, at the same time, attack its validity, regardless of whether the appraisers had jurisdiction to take into account the matters alleged in the complaints in evaluating such shares. The orders dismissing the complaints and the judgments entered thereon are unanimously affirmed, with costs, without passing upon the other questions involved. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

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

'Plaintiffs are not in position to question the fairness of the merger plan, either as allegedly depriving them of elements of value pertaining to their shares of stock by reason of the matters alleged in the complaints, or otherwise, after having accepted payment for their shares at the $135 provided by the plan, or in the amount arrived at by the appraisers. They could not accept the benefit of the merger plan and, at the same time, attack its validity, regardless of whether the appraisers had jurisdiction to take into account the matters alleged in the complaints in evaluating such shares. The orders dismissing the complaints and the judgments entered thereon are unanimously affirmed, with costs, without passing upon the other questions involved. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 755, 75 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amella-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack