Select Theatres Corp. v. Harms, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Select Theatres Corp. v. Harms, Inc.

273 A.D. 505, 78 N.Y.S.2d 159

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

DecidedApril 12, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 505 (Select Theatres Corp. v. Harms, 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

Select Theatres Corp. v. Harms, Inc., 273 A.D. 505, 78 N.Y.S.2d 159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although, as a part of the relief sought, the complaint asks for a dissolution of the corporation in whose behalf this action is brought, the cause of action nevertheless is, in its essence, a derivative one brought on behalf of the corporation and not for the plaintiff’s individual benefit. It was error, therefore, to refuse" to strike out counterclaims interposed not against the corporation but against the plaintiff individually. Although amended section 266 of the Civil Practice Act (L. 1936, eh. 324), effective September 1,1936, had liberalized the practice relating to the pleading of counterclaims, that section has not abolished the rule that the debts asserted -between plaintiff and defendant must be mutual and, to be mutual, the debts must be to and from the same persons in the same capacity (Matter of People [Consolidated Ind. & Ins. Co.], 287 N. Y. 34, 38; Matter of Proffen, 175 Misc. 447, 449-450). Plaintiff in this action asserts no claim on behalf of itself. It has no standing in this action apart from that which is derived as a stockholder and, if successful, any recovery would inure not to the benefit of plaintiff but to the benefit of the corporation in whose behalf the action is brought.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the counterclaims contained in the answer of defendant Harms, Inc., dismissed without prejudice.

G-lennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the counterclaims contained in the answer of defendant Harms, Inc., dismissed without prejudice. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

Although, as a part of the relief sought, the complaint asks for a dissolution of the corporation in whose behalf this action is brought, the cause of action nevertheless is, in its essence, a derivative one brought on behalf of the corporation and not for the plaintiff’s individual benefit. It was error, therefore, to refuse" to strike out counterclaims interposed not against the corporation but against the plaintiff individually. Although amended section 266 of the Civil Practice Act (L. 1936, eh. 324), effective September 1,1936, had liberalized the practice relating to the pleading of counterclaims, that section has not abolished the rule that the debts asserted -between plaintiff and defendant must be mutual and, to be mutual, the debts must be to and from the same persons in the same capacity (Matter of People [Consolidated Ind. & Ins. Co.], 287 N. Y. 34, 38; Matter of Proffen, 175 Misc. 447, 449-450). Plaintiff in this action asserts no claim on behalf of itself. It has no standing in this action apart from that which is derived as a stockholder and, if successful, any recovery would inure not to the benefit of plaintiff but to the benefit of the corporation in whose behalf the action is brought.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the counterclaims contained in the answer of defendant Harms, Inc., dismissed without prejudice.

G-lennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the counterclaims contained in the answer of defendant Harms, Inc., dismissed without prejudice. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 505, 78 N.Y.S.2d 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/select-theatres-corp-v-harms-inc-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack