Denise v. Welch

242 A.D. 34, 273 N.Y.S. 921, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5987
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 27, 1934·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action against appellant was not commenced within the period required by section 71 of the Stock Corporation Law which is an integral part of the statute under which plaintiff is claiming the right of recovery. (Hill v. Supervisors of Rensselaer County, 119 N. Y. 344.) (See, also, Matter of Keep, 241 App. Div. -, decided herewith.) As to the sufficiency of the complaint so far as it relates to the character of the occupation of plaintiff’s assignors coming within the statute, we are bound by our former decision (239 App. Div. 805).

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Denise v. Welch, 242 A.D. 34, 273 N.Y.S. 921, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

242 A.D. 34 (Denise v. Welch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Powers v. Foley
25 A.D.2d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
In re the Estate of Kupofsky
202 Misc. 756 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1951)