Panos v. Magnum Rebuilders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panos v. Magnum Rebuilders, Inc.

192 A.D.2d 1085, 598 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4098

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

DecidedApril 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1085 (Panos v. Magnum Rebuilders, 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

Panos v. Magnum Rebuilders, Inc., 192 A.D.2d 1085, 598 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late claim of respondent Gary R. Bobbett that was filed 12 days after the expiration date for filing a claim as contained- in the published notice of the receiver (see, Gardner v Fyr-Fyter Co., 47 AD2d 591, 592; see also, Business Corporation Law § 1007 [b]; § 1207 [a] [1] [C]). The court has the authority to permit the filing of a late claim [1086]*1086“in the case of a creditor who shows satisfactory reason for his failure to file his claim as so provided” (Business Corporation Law § 1007 [b]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Corporate Dissolution.) Present— Green, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late claim of respondent Gary R. Bobbett that was filed 12 days after the expiration date for filing a claim as contained- in the published notice of the receiver (see, Gardner v Fyr-Fyter Co., 47 AD2d 591, 592; see also, Business Corporation Law § 1007 [b]; § 1207 [a] [1] [C]). The court has the authority to permit the filing of a late claim [1086]*1086“in the case of a creditor who shows satisfactory reason for his failure to file his claim as so provided” (Business Corporation Law § 1007 [b]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Corporate Dissolution.) Present— Green, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1085, 598 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panos-v-magnum-rebuilders-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack