Iron v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iron v. Brown

18 A.D.2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 996 (Iron v. Brown) 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

Iron v. Brown, 18 A.D.2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on November 13, 1962, granting the motion of defendan-ts-respondents for an order to dismiss the first cause |of action of the second amended complaint, under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the cause of action had not accrued within the time limited by law for the commencement of [997]*997an action thereon, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-respondents. The problem of characterizing properly a diversion of corporate opportunity under the applicable Statutes of Limitations, depending upon the remedies available, is not free from difficult problems, if considered as a novel question. It is not a novel question; this court, in Augstein v. Levey (3 A D 2d 595, 599-600, affd. 4 N Y 2d 791) had occasion to determine the question explicitly, albeit alternatively. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. [37 Misc 2d 347.]

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

Order, entered on November 13, 1962, granting the motion of defendan-ts-respondents for an order to dismiss the first cause |of action of the second amended complaint, under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the cause of action had not accrued within the time limited by law for the commencement of [997]*997an action thereon, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-respondents. The problem of characterizing properly a diversion of corporate opportunity under the applicable Statutes of Limitations, depending upon the remedies available, is not free from difficult problems, if considered as a novel question. It is not a novel question; this court, in Augstein v. Levey (3 A D 2d 595, 599-600, affd. 4 N Y 2d 791) had occasion to determine the question explicitly, albeit alternatively. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. [37 Misc 2d 347.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iron-v-brown-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack