Benishai v. Benishai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benishai v. Benishai

25 A.D.3d 385, 806 N.Y.S.2d 868

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 385 (Benishai v. Benishai) 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

Benishai v. Benishai, 25 A.D.3d 385, 806 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 28, 2005, which, in an action for alleged mismanagement and conversion of corporate assets brought by appellant as plaintiff shareholder’s purported attorney in fact, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity to sue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly extended comity to an order of an Israeli court barring appellant from utilizing the durable general power of attorney allegedly signed by plaintiff, there being no showing that such order was procured by fraud or violates some strong public policy of this state (see Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376 [1980]). There would be no such violation of public policy even if, as appellant asserts, plaintiff was competent at the time she signed the power of attorney. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, 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 February 28, 2005, which, in an action for alleged mismanagement and conversion of corporate assets brought by appellant as plaintiff shareholder’s purported attorney in fact, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity to sue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly extended comity to an order of an Israeli court barring appellant from utilizing the durable general power of attorney allegedly signed by plaintiff, there being no showing that such order was procured by fraud or violates some strong public policy of this state (see Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376 [1980]). There would be no such violation of public policy even if, as appellant asserts, plaintiff was competent at the time she signed the power of attorney. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 385, 806 N.Y.S.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benishai-v-benishai-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack