Multiple Products, Inc. v. Seaboard National Distribution Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Multiple Products, Inc. v. Seaboard National Distribution Center, Inc.

34 A.D.2d 919, 311 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4533

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

DecidedJune 11, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 919 (Multiple Products, Inc. v. Seaboard National Distribution Center, 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

Multiple Products, Inc. v. Seaboard National Distribution Center, Inc., 34 A.D.2d 919, 311 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered November 26, 1969, unanimously modified on the law and the facts by vacating the judgment as against the defendant Rodolitz and dismissing the complaint as to him, and except as modified judgment affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Even though the individual was neither -an officer nor a director of the corporate defendant, he was its sole stockholder and concededly its moving spirit. All of the acts done by him were on behalf of the corporation and the latter’s liability stems solely from those acts. The claim is based on an overcharge by the corporate defendant and no grounds for individual liability were established. Concur — Eager, J. P., McGivern, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment entered November 26, 1969, unanimously modified on the law and the facts by vacating the judgment as against the defendant Rodolitz and dismissing the complaint as to him, and except as modified judgment affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Even though the individual was neither -an officer nor a director of the corporate defendant, he was its sole stockholder and concededly its moving spirit. All of the acts done by him were on behalf of the corporation and the latter’s liability stems solely from those acts. The claim is based on an overcharge by the corporate defendant and no grounds for individual liability were established. Concur — Eager, J. P., McGivern, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 919, 311 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/multiple-products-inc-v-seaboard-national-distribution-center-inc-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack