Melendez v. Venture

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melendez v. Venture

237 A.D.2d 114, 655 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2126

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 114 (Melendez v. Venture) 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

Melendez v. Venture, 237 A.D.2d 114, 655 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 14, 1995, which directed cancellation of defendant’s shares in the subject corporation and declared that plaintiff is the sole shareholder thereof, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[115]*115Defendant’s shares in the corporation were properly can-celled because of his failure to comply with the so-ordered stipulation requiring him to deliver the shares to plaintiff. Defendant has been represented by counsel throughout this litigation, and does not allege fraud, collusion, mistake or any other circumstances that would invalidate the stipulation (see, Heimuller v Amoco Oil Co., 92 AD2d 882, 884). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 14, 1995, which directed cancellation of defendant’s shares in the subject corporation and declared that plaintiff is the sole shareholder thereof, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[115]*115Defendant’s shares in the corporation were properly can-celled because of his failure to comply with the so-ordered stipulation requiring him to deliver the shares to plaintiff. Defendant has been represented by counsel throughout this litigation, and does not allege fraud, collusion, mistake or any other circumstances that would invalidate the stipulation (see, Heimuller v Amoco Oil Co., 92 AD2d 882, 884). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 114, 655 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melendez-v-venture-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack