Geist v. Burnstine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Geist v. Burnstine

258 A.D. 734, 14 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6693

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1939

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 734 (Geist v. Burnstine) 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

Geist v. Burnstine, 258 A.D. 734, 14 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered May 2, 1939, appointing A. Joseph Geist managing and liquidating partner of the firm of Bumstine & Geist and of the firm of Burnstine, Geist, Netter & Hirst, and of all the partnersMp and joint property, assets and effects of the plaintiff and the defendant Henry C. Burnstine, modified by striking from the third ordering paragraph thereof the words: “ including the business and affairs of Playland Holding Corp.,” and as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs. The Playland Holding Corp. is a separate entity and all its capital stock is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant Henry C. Bumstine. It was, therefore, improper to authorize and empower plaintiff as the managing and liquidating partner of the law firms to manage all the property, assets and effects of the corporation. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Order entered May 2, 1939, appointing A. Joseph Geist managing and liquidating partner of the firm of Bumstine & Geist and of the firm of Burnstine, Geist, Netter & Hirst, and of all the partnersMp and joint property, assets and effects of the plaintiff and the defendant Henry C. Burnstine, modified by striking from the third ordering paragraph thereof the words: “ including the business and affairs of Playland Holding Corp.,” and as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs. The Playland Holding Corp. is a separate entity and all its capital stock is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant Henry C. Bumstine. It was, therefore, improper to authorize and empower plaintiff as the managing and liquidating partner of the law firms to manage all the property, assets and effects of the corporation. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 734, 14 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geist-v-burnstine-nyappdiv-1939.