Rendich v. Preferred Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rendich v. Preferred Mutual Fire Insurance

274 A.D. 800, 79 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3406

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

DecidedJune 7, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 800 (Rendich v. Preferred Mutual Fire Insurance) 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

Rendich v. Preferred Mutual Fire Insurance, 274 A.D. 800, 79 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dismissing the third cause of action for insufficiency reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss said cause of action denied, with $10 costs. The third cause of action alleges facts sufficiently indicating that the individual defendant, acting outside his authority as a corporate officer, sought to extort a private advantage and to obtain a secret profit from the plaintiff; and that upo%the failure of such attempt, he induced the corporation, against its best interests, to breach a corporate contract with the plaintiff. (Navarro v. Fiorita, 271 App. Div. 62, affd. 296 N. Y. 783; 3 Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations [Perm. ed.], § 887.) Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 892.]

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

Order dismissing the third cause of action for insufficiency reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss said cause of action denied, with $10 costs. The third cause of action alleges facts sufficiently indicating that the individual defendant, acting outside his authority as a corporate officer, sought to extort a private advantage and to obtain a secret profit from the plaintiff; and that upo%the failure of such attempt, he induced the corporation, against its best interests, to breach a corporate contract with the plaintiff. (Navarro v. Fiorita, 271 App. Div. 62, affd. 296 N. Y. 783; 3 Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations [Perm. ed.], § 887.) Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 892.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 800, 79 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rendich-v-preferred-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack