Dewar v. Cigarette Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dewar v. Cigarette Service, Inc.

5 A.D.2d 764, 170 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7110

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 764 (Dewar v. Cigarette Service, 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

Dewar v. Cigarette Service, Inc., 5 A.D.2d 764, 170 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Order appealed from is unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent. This is an appeal from an order granting petitioner, a director and stockholder of the respondent corporation, an examination of its books and records. Respondents below contend that there is a jurisdictional defect voiding the proceeding because Special Term did not follow the requirements of section 1289 et seq. of the Civil Practice Act. While section 1289 requires at least eight days’ notice in writing, admittedly that requirement was not observed. However, Horowitz, an attorney and an officer of respondent corporation, filed an affidavit in opposition to the petition on the merits. Any defect in procedure was thus waived and must be held to be binding on the corporation. Since an answering affidavit had already been interposed by respondents, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in not granting them an adjournment because of actual engagement of another and different counsel. Moreover, insofar as disclosed by the record the petitioner is still a director of the corporation, in which case his right to an inspection is absolute. (Matter of Cohen v. Cocoline Prods., 309 N. Y. 119; Matter of Steinway, 159 N. Y. 250; People ex rel. Leach v. Central Fish Co., 117 App. Div. 77.) Settle order.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order appealed from is unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent. This is an appeal from an order granting petitioner, a director and stockholder of the respondent corporation, an examination of its books and records. Respondents below contend that there is a jurisdictional defect voiding the proceeding because Special Term did not follow the requirements of section 1289 et seq. of the Civil Practice Act. While section 1289 requires at least eight days’ notice in writing, admittedly that requirement was not observed. However, Horowitz, an attorney and an officer of respondent corporation, filed an affidavit in opposition to the petition on the merits. Any defect in procedure was thus waived and must be held to be binding on the corporation. Since an answering affidavit had already been interposed by respondents, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in not granting them an adjournment because of actual engagement of another and different counsel. Moreover, insofar as disclosed by the record the petitioner is still a director of the corporation, in which case his right to an inspection is absolute. (Matter of Cohen v. Cocoline Prods., 309 N. Y. 119; Matter of Steinway, 159 N. Y. 250; People ex rel. Leach v. Central Fish Co., 117 App. Div. 77.) Settle order.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 764, 170 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dewar-v-cigarette-service-inc-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack