Doliner v. Eastern Can Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doliner v. Eastern Can Co.

25 A.D.2d 823, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4335

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

DecidedMay 5, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 823 (Doliner v. Eastern Can Co.) 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

Doliner v. Eastern Can Co., 25 A.D.2d 823, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Motions for reargument granted. On reargument the court adheres to its original decision. It was permissible for the defendant bank, acting as transfer agent for the company, to delay transferring the stock while it investigated the claimed transfer disability. But such investigation had to be diligently conducted, and it was not. On the trial it will not be open to defendants to reargue the propriety of the indefinite refusal to transfer, or even for an absolute 30-day period, that issue having necessarily been concluded adversely to them. However, this court does not now determine the precise time at which the bank’s refusal became wrongful. The reasonable time, after which it was incumbent on the transfer agent bank to complete the transfer, and as it may affect the amount of the damages is for the trial court to determine, as reserved by the prior decision and order at Special Term. Evidence on those issues may appropriately be submitted at trial. That branch of the motions requesting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied.

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Motions for reargument granted. On reargument the court adheres to its original decision. It was permissible for the defendant bank, acting as transfer agent for the company, to delay transferring the stock while it investigated the claimed transfer disability. But such investigation had to be diligently conducted, and it was not. On the trial it will not be open to defendants to reargue the propriety of the indefinite refusal to transfer, or even for an absolute 30-day period, that issue having necessarily been concluded adversely to them. However, this court does not now determine the precise time at which the bank’s refusal became wrongful. The reasonable time, after which it was incumbent on the transfer agent bank to complete the transfer, and as it may affect the amount of the damages is for the trial court to determine, as reserved by the prior decision and order at Special Term. Evidence on those issues may appropriately be submitted at trial. That branch of the motions requesting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied.

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 823, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doliner-v-eastern-can-co-nyappdiv-1966.