Jones v. Cuffee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Cuffee

49 A.D.2d 883, 373 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11099

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 883 (Jones v. Cuffee) 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

Jones v. Cuffee, 49 A.D.2d 883, 373 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In three consolidated actions relating to two corporations, (1) James E. Cuffee appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1975, as appointed a temporary receiver of one of the corporations, 218 Property Corp., and (2) Elizabeth Jones appeals from so much of the same order as appointed temporary receivers of both corporations. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Under the circumstances outlined in the record on this appeal, including charges and countercharges of misappropriation of funds and dilution of assets, we should not interfere with the equitable powers exercised by Special Term in making the appointments of conservators to prevent further loss or injury to the properties. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In three consolidated actions relating to two corporations, (1) James E. Cuffee appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 1975, as appointed a temporary receiver of one of the corporations, 218 Property Corp., and (2) Elizabeth Jones appeals from so much of the same order as appointed temporary receivers of both corporations. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Under the circumstances outlined in the record on this appeal, including charges and countercharges of misappropriation of funds and dilution of assets, we should not interfere with the equitable powers exercised by Special Term in making the appointments of conservators to prevent further loss or injury to the properties. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 883, 373 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-cuffee-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack