Goldstein v. Lightner

266 A.D. 357, 42 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3567
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 1943
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 266 A.D. 357 (Goldstein v. Lightner) 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
Goldstein v. Lightner, 266 A.D. 357, 42 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The second cause of action was properly dismissed. Concededly, this action is identical with that pleaded in the case of Strassburger v. Singer Mfg. Co. (263 App. Div. 518). In the cited case the complaint, which sought a judgment to require this same corporate defendant, a New Jersey corporation, to pay out in dividends part of a large surplus not needed for the business of the corporation, was dismissed by this court. The basis of the ruling in the Strassburger case was that the subject matter involved the internal management of a foreign corporation over which the courts of this State should decline jurisdiction.

However, there was no justification for the dismissal of the first cause of action, which is a derivative suit in behalf of the corporation, to recover from defendant directors of a foreign corporation damages for the breach of their fiduciary duty resulting in waste of the corporate assets. To this cause of action the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply. (Cuppy v. Ward, 187 App. Div. 625, 632, affd. 227 N. Y. 603; Hamm v. Christian Herald Corp., 236 App. Div. 639, 642; Weinstein v. Aeolian Co., 243 App. Div.. 355, 356.)

The judgment should accordingly be reversed, with costs, and the order modified to the extent of denying the motion to dismiss the first cause of action stated in the complaint, and as so modified affirmed.

Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the order modified to the extent of denying the motion to dismiss the first cause of action stated in the complaint, and as so modified affirmed.

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

Related

Ezrasons, Inc. v. Rudd
2025 NY Slip Op 03008 (New York Court of Appeals, 2025)
Broida v. Bancroft
103 A.D.2d 88 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Prescott v. Plant Industries, Inc.
88 F.R.D. 257 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Ackert v. Ausman
29 Misc. 2d 974 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Samuelson v. Starr
28 Misc. 2d 479 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Markewich v. Newberg
27 Misc. 2d 1040 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Wagner v. Braunsberg
5 A.D.2d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
November v. National Exhibition Co.
10 Misc. 2d 537 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Sher v. Tilles
8 Misc. 2d 253 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
330 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court, 1947)
North v. Ringling
187 Misc. 621 (New York Supreme Court, 1946)
Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co.
153 F.2d 888 (Second Circuit, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D. 357, 42 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-lightner-nyappdiv-1943.