Gardner v. Dyno Merchandise Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gardner v. Dyno Merchandise Corp.

55 A.D.2d 932, 390 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10195

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 932 (Gardner v. Dyno Merchandise Corp.) 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

Gardner v. Dyno Merchandise Corp., 55 A.D.2d 932, 390 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to compel appellant to make certain corporate books and records available to petitioner, the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1976, which, inter alia, granted the application and permitted inspection of the books and records from 1970 to date and (2) a resettled judgment of the same court, dated July 16, 1976, which, inter alia, permit[933]*933ted such an inspection from July 1, 1972 to date. Appeal from the judgment dated April 26, 1976 dismissed, as academic. That judgment was superseded by the resettled judgment. Resettled judgment affirmed. Petitioner is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in permitting the petitioner to inspect the records of the appellant corporation from July 1, 1972. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to compel appellant to make certain corporate books and records available to petitioner, the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1976, which, inter alia, granted the application and permitted inspection of the books and records from 1970 to date and (2) a resettled judgment of the same court, dated July 16, 1976, which, inter alia, permit[933]*933ted such an inspection from July 1, 1972 to date. Appeal from the judgment dated April 26, 1976 dismissed, as academic. That judgment was superseded by the resettled judgment. Resettled judgment affirmed. Petitioner is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in permitting the petitioner to inspect the records of the appellant corporation from July 1, 1972. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 932, 390 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-dyno-merchandise-corp-nyappdiv-1977.