Maryan Restaurant, Inc. v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maryan Restaurant, Inc. v. Miller

19 A.D.2d 812, 243 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3128

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 812 (Maryan Restaurant, Inc. v. Miller) 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

Maryan Restaurant, Inc. v. Miller, 19 A.D.2d 812, 243 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on December 27, 1962, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion therefor granted. This is an action to recover possession of 42 promis[813]*813spry notes. The notes are payable to plaintiff. Max Miller is president and sole stockholder of the plaintiff. His wife, the defendant, is not and never was a record stockholder, director or officer of the plaintiff. The Millers are separated and a suit for a separation decree is pending. Defendant claims she and her husband are the sole stockholders and officers of the plaintiff. Also pending' is nn action by the defendant against her husband for conversion and misappropriation of corporate funds. The sole issue here is who is entitled to possession of the notes belonging to the corporation. Assuming the validity of the claims made by defendant, she has failed to establish any legal right to possession of the notes. We decide no other question. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on December 27, 1962, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion therefor granted. This is an action to recover possession of 42 promis[813]*813spry notes. The notes are payable to plaintiff. Max Miller is president and sole stockholder of the plaintiff. His wife, the defendant, is not and never was a record stockholder, director or officer of the plaintiff. The Millers are separated and a suit for a separation decree is pending. Defendant claims she and her husband are the sole stockholders and officers of the plaintiff. Also pending' is nn action by the defendant against her husband for conversion and misappropriation of corporate funds. The sole issue here is who is entitled to possession of the notes belonging to the corporation. Assuming the validity of the claims made by defendant, she has failed to establish any legal right to possession of the notes. We decide no other question. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 812, 243 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryan-restaurant-inc-v-miller-nyappdiv-1963.