In re the Final Accounting of Halberstadt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Final Accounting of Halberstadt

5 A.D.2d 977, 172 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6324

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

DecidedApril 10, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 977 (In re the Final Accounting of Halberstadt) 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 the Final Accounting of Halberstadt, 5 A.D.2d 977, 172 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Despite the consent of all parties and persons having any interest in a voluntary proceeding for the dissolution of a corporation under the provisions of the General Corporation Law, Special Term denied an application for a discontinuance and referred the question to a Referee. There is no apparent justification for the refusal to accede to the clearly expressed wishes of all interested parties, including all known creditors, the Attorney-General of the State of New York, the stockholders and directors of the corporation, and even the temporary receiver (who is nominally the respondent on this appeal). Under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a discontinuance. In view of our conclusion as to the discontinuance, the order authorizing the receiver to employ counsel and referring the question of whether he should retain expert engineering and appraisal services to the Referee must also fall. The order is reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion and the motion for a discontinuance is granted, without costs. The order [as to appointment of counsel] is reversed on the law and in the exercise of [974]*974discretion, without costs, and the motion denied as moot in view of the discontinuance directed.

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

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

Despite the consent of all parties and persons having any interest in a voluntary proceeding for the dissolution of a corporation under the provisions of the General Corporation Law, Special Term denied an application for a discontinuance and referred the question to a Referee. There is no apparent justification for the refusal to accede to the clearly expressed wishes of all interested parties, including all known creditors, the Attorney-General of the State of New York, the stockholders and directors of the corporation, and even the temporary receiver (who is nominally the respondent on this appeal). Under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a discontinuance. In view of our conclusion as to the discontinuance, the order authorizing the receiver to employ counsel and referring the question of whether he should retain expert engineering and appraisal services to the Referee must also fall. The order is reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion and the motion for a discontinuance is granted, without costs. The order [as to appointment of counsel] is reversed on the law and in the exercise of [974]*974discretion, without costs, and the motion denied as moot in view of the discontinuance directed.

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 977, 172 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-final-accounting-of-halberstadt-nyappdiv-1958.