Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Klar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Klar

278 A.D.2d 40, 717 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12664

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 2000·Published

Opinion

Deficiency judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered May 5, 2000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s claim that plaintiff is a foreign corporation doing business in New York without authority, and is therefore maintaining this action in violation of Business Corporation Law § 1312, is unsupported by any evidence of systematic and regular activity (see, Alicanto, S.A. v Woolverton, 129 AD2d 601, 602; cf., Business Corporation Law § 1301 [b]). Nor does defendant offer any persuasive evidence on valuation. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Deficiency judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered May 5, 2000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s claim that plaintiff is a foreign corporation doing business in New York without authority, and is therefore maintaining this action in violation of Business Corporation Law § 1312, is unsupported by any evidence of systematic and regular activity (see, Alicanto, S.A. v Woolverton, 129 AD2d 601, 602; cf., Business Corporation Law § 1301 [b]). Nor does defendant offer any persuasive evidence on valuation. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Klar, 278 A.D.2d 40, 717 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 40 (Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Klar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related