In re Sheriff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sheriff

268 A.D. 771, 50 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3396

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

DecidedJune 28, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D. 771 (In re Sheriff) 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 Sheriff, 268 A.D. 771, 50 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified by eliminating therefrom the restriction limiting the examination to the period subsequent to January 12, 1939, and as so modified affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the petitioner-appellant. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.; Cohn, J., dissents in the following memorandum in which Untermyer, J., concurs: There is an issue of fact as to whether a demand to inspect the books of the corporation was ever refused. Accordingly, the final order herein should not have been granted. The matter should be remitted to the Special Term for a determination of that question before the issuance of a peremptory order. (Matter of Wong Wah Yew v. Mun Hey Pub. Co., 275 N. Y. 615; Matter of Ellsworth, Barrows & Co. v. Ward, 255 App. Div. 91.)

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

Order modified by eliminating therefrom the restriction limiting the examination to the period subsequent to January 12, 1939, and as so modified affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the petitioner-appellant. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.; Cohn, J., dissents in the following memorandum in which Untermyer, J., concurs: There is an issue of fact as to whether a demand to inspect the books of the corporation was ever refused. Accordingly, the final order herein should not have been granted. The matter should be remitted to the Special Term for a determination of that question before the issuance of a peremptory order. (Matter of Wong Wah Yew v. Mun Hey Pub. Co., 275 N. Y. 615; Matter of Ellsworth, Barrows & Co. v. Ward, 255 App. Div. 91.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D. 771, 50 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sheriff-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack