Salzberg v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salzberg v. Cohen

261 A.D. 985, 26 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8432

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 985 (Salzberg v. Cohen) 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

Salzberg v. Cohen, 261 A.D. 985, 26 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In a representative action brought to recover the value of the good will and trade names of a dissolved corporation, alleged to have been wrongfully appropriated by its officers and directors in a conspiracy with others, order modified by striking out the first, third and fourth ordering paragraphs, and by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words “ causes of action numbered ‘ Fourth,’ ‘ Fifth,’ ‘ Sixth ’ and ‘ Seventh ’ of ” and the words “ and it is further.” As thus modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to appellant, with [986]*986leave to defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The first cause of action sufficiently alleges a wrongful conspiracy by the defendants to misappropriate the good will and trade names of the corporation. (Godley v. Crandall & Codley Co., 212 N. Y. 121.) The second and third causes of action are sufficient under subdivision 2 of section 60 of the General Corporation Law. Lazansky» P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In a representative action brought to recover the value of the good will and trade names of a dissolved corporation, alleged to have been wrongfully appropriated by its officers and directors in a conspiracy with others, order modified by striking out the first, third and fourth ordering paragraphs, and by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words “ causes of action numbered ‘ Fourth,’ ‘ Fifth,’ ‘ Sixth ’ and ‘ Seventh ’ of ” and the words “ and it is further.” As thus modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to appellant, with [986]*986leave to defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The first cause of action sufficiently alleges a wrongful conspiracy by the defendants to misappropriate the good will and trade names of the corporation. (Godley v. Crandall & Codley Co., 212 N. Y. 121.) The second and third causes of action are sufficient under subdivision 2 of section 60 of the General Corporation Law. Lazansky» P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 985, 26 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salzberg-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack