Chemical Bank v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chemical Bank v. Scott

46 A.D.2d 611, 359 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 611 (Chemical Bank v. Scott) 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

Chemical Bank v. Scott, 46 A.D.2d 611, 359 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1974, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, and the motion of plaintiff-appellant granted dismissing the first counterclaim of defendant-respondent, Harold W. Scott. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Suit is upon a promissory note executed by both the defendants. The counterclaim is for alleged interference with a business opportunity. Not only is there failure to demonstrate that, absent such interference, the opportunity would have been realized, but it appears that, in any event, the fruits of the opportunity, if realized, would not have inured to the benefit of defendant-respondent, but to the corporation of which he was an officer and stockholder. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1974, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, and the motion of plaintiff-appellant granted dismissing the first counterclaim of defendant-respondent, Harold W. Scott. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Suit is upon a promissory note executed by both the defendants. The counterclaim is for alleged interference with a business opportunity. Not only is there failure to demonstrate that, absent such interference, the opportunity would have been realized, but it appears that, in any event, the fruits of the opportunity, if realized, would not have inured to the benefit of defendant-respondent, but to the corporation of which he was an officer and stockholder. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 611, 359 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-bank-v-scott-nyappdiv-1974.