Liebschutz v. Schaffer Stores Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liebschutz v. Schaffer Stores Co.

274 A.D. 847, 80 N.Y.S.2d 771

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 847 (Liebschutz v. Schaffer Stores Co.) 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

Liebschutz v. Schaffer Stores Co., 274 A.D. 847, 80 N.Y.S.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Upon this record, plaintiff was entitled only to an election to accept the plan of a reclassification of the shares of the capital stock or to seek an appraisal pursuant to section 21 of the Stock Corporation Law. On an appraisal, his rights, if any, to the surplus would have been determined. Plaintiff took neither step. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, (Anderson v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 295 N. Y. 343; McNulty v. W. & J. Sloane, 184 Misc. 835.) All concur, (The order denies defendant’s [848]*848motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See post, pp. 870, 1023.]

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

Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Upon this record, plaintiff was entitled only to an election to accept the plan of a reclassification of the shares of the capital stock or to seek an appraisal pursuant to section 21 of the Stock Corporation Law. On an appraisal, his rights, if any, to the surplus would have been determined. Plaintiff took neither step. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, (Anderson v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 295 N. Y. 343; McNulty v. W. & J. Sloane, 184 Misc. 835.) All concur, (The order denies defendant’s [848]*848motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See post, pp. 870, 1023.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 847, 80 N.Y.S.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebschutz-v-schaffer-stores-co-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack