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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1974·Published

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.

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

46 A.D.2d 758 (H. Hentz & Co. v. Sarlie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.