Matter of Dickson v. Flynn
This text of 6 N.E.2d 102 (Matter of Dickson v. Flynn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The purposes for which the Four-BoroOptical Corporation is to be organized, as set forth in its certificate of incorporation, conform with the provisions of section 1432-a of the Education Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 16) (Roschen v. Ward, 279 U. S. 337), and the objection by appellant appearing in the affidavit of the acting chief of the Division of Corporations is not sufficient to *76 warrant refusal to file and record this certificate. We do not construe the wording of the proposed certificate of incorporation as authorizing the practice of optometry.
At this time we decide no other issue. If, in the future, questions relating to any violation of law by the corporation or by any optometrist employed by it shall arise, the courts can then deal with them.
The order should be affirmed, without costs.
Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Loughran and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hubbs, J., dissents: Lehman and Finch, JJ., taking no part.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 N.E.2d 102, 273 N.Y. 72, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 1173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-dickson-v-flynn-ny-1937.