Kang Jai Ass'n v. Poon Gee Datt

279 A.D. 872, 110 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5154

This text of 279 A.D. 872 (Kang Jai Ass'n v. Poon Gee Datt) 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
Kang Jai Ass'n v. Poon Gee Datt, 279 A.D. 872, 110 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Opinion

Where a complaint states any cause of action, it may not be dismissed on a motion of this character. (Cornehlsen v. Dudensing, 270 App. Div. 1037.) Here the plaintiffs are the corporations and may assert a cause of action for an accounting. (General Corporation Law, §§ 60, 61.) On its face the complaint does not show that the institution of the action has been without proper authorization. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cornehlsen v. Dudensing
270 A.D. 1037 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D. 872, 110 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kang-jai-assn-v-poon-gee-datt-nyappdiv-1952.