In re C-Air Customhouse Brokers-Forwarders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re C-Air Customhouse Brokers-Forwarders, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 499, 756 N.Y.S.2d 435

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 499 (In re C-Air Customhouse Brokers-Forwarders, Inc.) 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

In re C-Air Customhouse Brokers-Forwarders, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 499, 756 N.Y.S.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law article 11 to dissolve a corporation, Milton Heid and Augustus Antico appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated January 18, 2002, as granted that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the addition or removal of directors during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860 [1990]; Matter of Walsh v Design Concepts, 221 AD2d 454 [1995]). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law article 11 to dissolve a corporation, Milton Heid and Augustus Antico appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated January 18, 2002, as granted that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the addition or removal of directors during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction (see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860 [1990]; Matter of Walsh v Design Concepts, 221 AD2d 454 [1995]). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 499, 756 N.Y.S.2d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-c-air-customhouse-brokers-forwarders-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack