Maline v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maline v. City of Utica

267 A.D.2d 1022, 701 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13776

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1022 (Maline v. City of Utica) 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

Maline v. City of Utica, 267 A.D.2d 1022, 701 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Advanced Absorber Products, Inc. dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Advanced Absorber Products, Inc. (AAP) to dismiss the complaint against it. AAP established that in 1982 it merged with defendant Keene Corporation (Keene). As a result of the merger, Keene became the owner of all real and personal property (see, Business Corporation Law § 906 [b] [2]) and assumed all its “liabilities, obligations and penalties” (Business Corporation Law § 906 [b] [3]). Consequently, any cause of action that plaintiffs could assert against AAP must be asserted against Keene. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Advanced Absorber Products, Inc. dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Advanced Absorber Products, Inc. (AAP) to dismiss the complaint against it. AAP established that in 1982 it merged with defendant Keene Corporation (Keene). As a result of the merger, Keene became the owner of all real and personal property (see, Business Corporation Law § 906 [b] [2]) and assumed all its “liabilities, obligations and penalties” (Business Corporation Law § 906 [b] [3]). Consequently, any cause of action that plaintiffs could assert against AAP must be asserted against Keene. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1022, 701 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maline-v-city-of-utica-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack