Rudnick v. Bischoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudnick v. Bischoff

258 A.D. 608, 17 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8248

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 A.D. 608 (Rudnick v. Bischoff) 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

Rudnick v. Bischoff, 258 A.D. 608, 17 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The third cause of action, which is here attacked for insufficiency, alleges merely a private sale of sixty-five shares of corporate stock owned personally by the defendant. It is urged in support of the contention for insufficiency that such a transaction does not come within the purview of the Securities Act of 1933 (U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 77a el seq.), and, consequently, that the cause of action concededly predicated thereon may not be maintained. Considering the act in the light of its language, the reasons for its enactment, the Presidential message respecting it and the committee reports in Congress, we are of opinion that it was not intended that this legislation should apply to the transaction here under consideration.

It follows, therefore, that the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the third cause of action for insufficiency should be reversed, with twenty dollars costi and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Present ■—■ Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untekmyer, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The third cause of action, which is here attacked for insufficiency, alleges merely a private sale of sixty-five shares of corporate stock owned personally by the defendant. It is urged in support of the contention for insufficiency that such a transaction does not come within the purview of the Securities Act of 1933 (U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 77a el seq.), and, consequently, that the cause of action concededly predicated thereon may not be maintained. Considering the act in the light of its language, the reasons for its enactment, the Presidential message respecting it and the committee reports in Congress, we are of opinion that it was not intended that this legislation should apply to the transaction here under consideration.

It follows, therefore, that the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the third cause of action for insufficiency should be reversed, with twenty dollars costi and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Present ■—■ Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untekmyer, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 608, 17 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudnick-v-bischoff-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack