Moore v. Fabrics by Decorama, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Fabrics by Decorama, Inc.

17 A.D.2d 612, 229 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8615

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 612 (Moore v. Fabrics by Decorama, Inc.) 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

Moore v. Fabrics by Decorama, Inc., 17 A.D.2d 612, 229 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on April 25; 1962, denying motion to separately state and number the causes of action and to strike certain allegations of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The suit is a stockholder’s derivative action. The title describes the plaintiff as suing in a representative capacity and also individually. However, at Special Term and on this appeal he has denied any intent to sue individually. Decision here and below has been on that basis and, accordingly, plaintiff will be deemed to have conceded that the action is limited to one of derivative origin. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered on April 25; 1962, denying motion to separately state and number the causes of action and to strike certain allegations of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The suit is a stockholder’s derivative action. The title describes the plaintiff as suing in a representative capacity and also individually. However, at Special Term and on this appeal he has denied any intent to sue individually. Decision here and below has been on that basis and, accordingly, plaintiff will be deemed to have conceded that the action is limited to one of derivative origin. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 612, 229 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-fabrics-by-decorama-inc-nyappdiv-1962.