Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Rosenfield v. Standard Electric Equipment Corp.

Rosenfield v. Standard Electric Equipment Corp.

276 A.D.2d 949
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 1950·Published

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Orders reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motions

to dismiss granted, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint setting forth facts showing the misconduct complained of and approximate dates thereof. The circumstances warrant the requirement of factual statement of excessive salaries and other alleged misconduct in order to establish a cause of action (Kalmanash v. Smith, 291 N. Y. 142, 154-155; Loew v. Interlake Iron Corp., 270 App. Div. 858; Smith v. Bailie, 44 N. Y. S. 2d 217, affd. 266 App. Div. 950; Rous v. Carlisle, 261 App. Div. 432, affd. 290 N. Y. 869).

In addition, we are of the opinion that the question of plaintiff’s ownership of this stock should be resolved before any examination before trial is ordered in this action.

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

Rosenfield v. Standard Electric Equipment Corp., 276 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

276 A.D.2d 949 (Rosenfield v. Standard Electric Equipment Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Condon v. Associated Hospital Service
40 N.E.2d 230 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)
Brinckerhoff v. . Bostwick
88 N.Y. 52 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)
Kalmanash v. Smith
51 N.E.2d 681 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)
Jacobson v. . Brooklyn Lumber Co.
76 N.E. 1075 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)
Walsh v. Van Ameringen-Haebler, Inc.
178 N.E. 764 (New York Court of Appeals, 1931)
Rous v. Carlisle
50 N.E.2d 250 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)
Gerdes v. Reynolds
22 N.E.2d 331 (New York Court of Appeals, 1939)
Rous v. Carlisle
261 A.D. 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
Smith v. Bailie
266 A.D. 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)
Loew v. Interlake Iron Corp.
270 A.D. 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)