H. Hentz & Co. v. Sarlie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

H. Hentz & Co. v. Sarlie

46 A.D.2d 758, 362 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 758 (H. Hentz & Co. v. Sarlie) 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

H. Hentz & Co. v. Sarlie, 46 A.D.2d 758, 362 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 3, 1974, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Markewich, Lqpiano, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.; McGivern, P. J., concurring in the following memorandum: Although I concur in affirming at this stage of the pleadings, I have no certitude that the plaintiff ultimately shall prevail. The plaintiff broker corporation, a sophisticated operative in these arcane areas of intercontinental finance, was not blindfolded; and it knowingly failed to comply with the ineluctable demands of the Internal Revenue Code (U. S. Code, tit. 26, §§ 4918, 6681). As a result of its own conscious noncomplianee with the statutory requirements, exclusively applicable to brokers in this field, a statutory penalty was assessed against Hentz by the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, I would affirm, but without prejudice, after an answer has been interposed, to such further applications for relief as the defendant may choose to make.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 3, 1974, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Markewich, Lqpiano, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.; McGivern, P. J., concurring in the following memorandum: Although I concur in affirming at this stage of the pleadings, I have no certitude that the plaintiff ultimately shall prevail. The plaintiff broker corporation, a sophisticated operative in these arcane areas of intercontinental finance, was not blindfolded; and it knowingly failed to comply with the ineluctable demands of the Internal Revenue Code (U. S. Code, tit. 26, §§ 4918, 6681). As a result of its own conscious noncomplianee with the statutory requirements, exclusively applicable to brokers in this field, a statutory penalty was assessed against Hentz by the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, I would affirm, but without prejudice, after an answer has been interposed, to such further applications for relief as the defendant may choose to make.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 758, 362 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-hentz-co-v-sarlie-nyappdiv-1974.