Ochs v. Fitzmorris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ochs v. Fitzmorris

51 A.D.2d 583, 378 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10877

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 583 (Ochs v. Fitzmorris) 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

Ochs v. Fitzmorris, 51 A.D.2d 583, 378 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to compel the individual defendants to turn over corporate records to plaintiff, (1) he appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 16, 1974, after a hearing, which, inter alia, required him to specifically perform part of a certain stipulation of settlement and (2) the individual defendants cross-appeal from so much of the said order as failed to require plaintiff to specifically perform the entire stipulation of settlement. Order affirmed, with costs to respondents-appellants. Under the facts of this case, it would be inequitable to permit plaintiff to be freed from that portion of the stipulation which he is able to perform. As to the balance of the [584]*584obligations incurred by him, which involve the issue of whether corporate assets would be so depleted as to render the corporation insolvent, the record is insufficient to determine whether the corporation, now inactive, has creditors who would be adversely affected by the transfers contemplated in the stipulation. Special Term therefore properly held that issue in abeyance pending further proceedings. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to compel the individual defendants to turn over corporate records to plaintiff, (1) he appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 16, 1974, after a hearing, which, inter alia, required him to specifically perform part of a certain stipulation of settlement and (2) the individual defendants cross-appeal from so much of the said order as failed to require plaintiff to specifically perform the entire stipulation of settlement. Order affirmed, with costs to respondents-appellants. Under the facts of this case, it would be inequitable to permit plaintiff to be freed from that portion of the stipulation which he is able to perform. As to the balance of the [584]*584obligations incurred by him, which involve the issue of whether corporate assets would be so depleted as to render the corporation insolvent, the record is insufficient to determine whether the corporation, now inactive, has creditors who would be adversely affected by the transfers contemplated in the stipulation. Special Term therefore properly held that issue in abeyance pending further proceedings. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 583, 378 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ochs-v-fitzmorris-nyappdiv-1976.