Manhattan Marine & Electric Co. v. Hewitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manhattan Marine & Electric Co. v. Hewitt

72 A.D.2d 682, 421 N.Y.S.2d 221

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 682 (Manhattan Marine & Electric Co. v. Hewitt) 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

Manhattan Marine & Electric Co. v. Hewitt, 72 A.D.2d 682, 421 N.Y.S.2d 221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Three orders, Supreme Court, New York County, two of which were entered April 30, 1979 and the other on May 1, 1979, inter alia, denying respondents’ cross motions for discovery and oral examinations, unanimously modified, on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs and disbursements, to the extent of granting the cross motions to permit respondents to take the deposition of each petitioner corporation, by its officer or employee having knowledge of the facts concerning the fair value of the shares of common stock, and requiring that upon such deposition each of said corporations shall be required to produce any records necessary to aid in such examination, upon the completion of which a motion for discovery and inspection may be made pursuant to CPLR 408 and 3120, and, except as thus modified, affirmed. In our opinion, sufficient [683]*683was shown, despite the summary nature of a special proceeding under section 623 (subds [h], [i]) of the Business Corporation Law, to warrant the grant of disclosure (CPLR 408) of information concerning the financial condition of the corporations prior to the hearing to be held by the appraiser as to the value of the dissenting stockholders’ shares of common stock, and we modify accordingly. (See Matter of Sheridan v Mobil Oil Corp., 59 AD2d 884.) Concur&emdash;Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sullivan, Lane and Ross, JJ.

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

Three orders, Supreme Court, New York County, two of which were entered April 30, 1979 and the other on May 1, 1979, inter alia, denying respondents’ cross motions for discovery and oral examinations, unanimously modified, on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs and disbursements, to the extent of granting the cross motions to permit respondents to take the deposition of each petitioner corporation, by its officer or employee having knowledge of the facts concerning the fair value of the shares of common stock, and requiring that upon such deposition each of said corporations shall be required to produce any records necessary to aid in such examination, upon the completion of which a motion for discovery and inspection may be made pursuant to CPLR 408 and 3120, and, except as thus modified, affirmed. In our opinion, sufficient [683]*683was shown, despite the summary nature of a special proceeding under section 623 (subds [h], [i]) of the Business Corporation Law, to warrant the grant of disclosure (CPLR 408) of information concerning the financial condition of the corporations prior to the hearing to be held by the appraiser as to the value of the dissenting stockholders’ shares of common stock, and we modify accordingly. (See Matter of Sheridan v Mobil Oil Corp., 59 AD2d 884.) Concur&emdash;Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sullivan, Lane and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 682, 421 N.Y.S.2d 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-marine-electric-co-v-hewitt-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack