Iron v. Brown

18 A.D.2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 1963·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] an 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

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).

18 A.D.2d 996 (Iron v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Loengard v. Santa Fe Industries, Inc.
573 F. Supp. 1355 (S.D. New York, 1983)