Berzin v. Litton Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berzin v. Litton Industries, Inc.

29 A.D.2d 857, 288 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4364

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 857 (Berzin v. Litton Industries, Inc.) 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

Berzin v. Litton Industries, Inc., 29 A.D.2d 857, 288 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered November 3, 1967, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and for a stay of a pending action, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff’s amended pleading has not strengthened his position vis-a-vis any individual cause of action for money damages. Plaintiff has again failed to set forth essential facts showing the material elements of any individual cause of action. (Berzin v. Litton Ind., 24 A D 2d 740.) It is still plain that the proxy statement complained of was prepared by the Adler corporation for Adler stockholders and the plaintiff has no acceptable proof as to any complicity on the part of the Litton corporate defendants. If by any chance, Adler’s assets were sold to Litton for too little, then all of the Adler shareholders suffered a diminution in the value of their shares and their redress is a derivative action for the benefit of all. Such an action, involving substantially the same issues as are now. tendered in the last pleading, is now pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, (Bochner v. Adler Electronics, 63 Civil 3485.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered November 3, 1967, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and for a stay of a pending action, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff’s amended pleading has not strengthened his position vis-a-vis any individual cause of action for money damages. Plaintiff has again failed to set forth essential facts showing the material elements of any individual cause of action. (Berzin v. Litton Ind., 24 A D 2d 740.) It is still plain that the proxy statement complained of was prepared by the Adler corporation for Adler stockholders and the plaintiff has no acceptable proof as to any complicity on the part of the Litton corporate defendants. If by any chance, Adler’s assets were sold to Litton for too little, then all of the Adler shareholders suffered a diminution in the value of their shares and their redress is a derivative action for the benefit of all. Such an action, involving substantially the same issues as are now. tendered in the last pleading, is now pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, (Bochner v. Adler Electronics, 63 Civil 3485.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 857, 288 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berzin-v-litton-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1968.