Horowitz Bros. & Margareten v. Margareten

New York Court of Appeals

Horowitz Bros. & Margareten v. Margareten

478 N.E.2d 194, 64 N.Y.2d 1008, 489 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16691

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 N.E.2d 194 (Horowitz Bros. & Margareten v. Margareten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horowitz Bros. & Margareten v. Margareten, 478 N.E.2d 194, 64 N.Y.2d 1008, 489 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16691 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated, without costs.

The finding of the trial court that the February 18, 1910 agreement was not followed by the shareholders over the years more closely comports with the weight of the evidence than does the finding of the Appellate Division. While there is some evidence to the contrary, the scales are tipped by the testimony of witnesses, active in the corporation from 1916 to 1980, that a resolution of March 21, 1938 embodied a change of business practice from that contemplated by the February 1910 agreement. We have considered the plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them without merit.

The 203 pages of plaintiffs’ brief and reply brief invoke our denial of costs. We stress again that our reluctance to impose a limitation on the length of briefs “[t]oo often * * * is merely viewed as a license to substitute volume for logic in an apparent attempt to overwhelm the courts” (Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1, 5).

[1011]*1011Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Alexander and Lynch

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated, without costs.

The finding of the trial court that the February 18, 1910 agreement was not followed by the shareholders over the years more closely comports with the weight of the evidence than does the finding of the Appellate Division. While there is some evidence to the contrary, the scales are tipped by the testimony of witnesses, active in the corporation from 1916 to 1980, that a resolution of March 21, 1938 embodied a change of business practice from that contemplated by the February 1910 agreement. We have considered the plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them without merit.

The 203 pages of plaintiffs’ brief and reply brief invoke our denial of costs. We stress again that our reluctance to impose a limitation on the length of briefs “[t]oo often * * * is merely viewed as a license to substitute volume for logic in an apparent attempt to overwhelm the courts” (Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1, 5).

[1011]*1011Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Alexander and Lynch

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 N.E.2d 194, 64 N.Y.2d 1008, 489 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horowitz-bros-margareten-v-margareten-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack