Silverstein v. Marine Midland Trust Co.

1 A.D.2d 1037, 152 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5318
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 21, 1956
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1037 (Silverstein v. Marine Midland Trust Co.) 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
Silverstein v. Marine Midland Trust Co., 1 A.D.2d 1037, 152 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

In an action for conversion of shares of stock, the appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of respondents, awarding both actual and punitive damages. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, unless, within twenty days after the entry of the order hereon, all respondents stipulate to reduce the verdict for actual damages to six cents, and respondents David Silverstein, Leon Silverstein, and Bernard Erbsenthal stipulate to reduce the [1038]*1038verdict for punitive damages to $1,000 for each, in which event, the judgment, as so reduced, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. On and after September 28, 1954, appellant wrongfully withheld possession of shares of stock owned by respondents in a corporation of which they were sole stockholders, officers, and directors. Respondents then had the option of abandoning title to the stock and suing for its value. (Pierpoint v. Hoyt, 260 N. Y. 26.) However, after such wrongful detention, and both before and after the institution of this action for conversion, respondents exercised rights of ownership over the stock by transferring the assets of the corporation to a partnership formed by them, by executing as stockholders, and thereafter filing, a certificate of dissolution of the corporation, and by receiving the return of a substantial portion of their capital investment in the corporation. By resuming dominion over the stock, respondents lost the right to recover the value of the stock. The sole measure of damages under these circumstances is the loss flowing from the wrongful withholding of possession. In this ease that damage was only nominal. In our opinion, the award for punitive damages was excessive. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Related

OL USA LLC v. Maersk A/S
S.D. New York, 2024
Ray v. Balestriere Fariello
S.D. New York, 2021
Fischkoff v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
339 F. Supp. 3d 408 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
De Los Santos v. Western Beef Supermarket Inc.
43 Misc. 3d 31 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC
961 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D. New York, 2013)
Slue v. New York University Medical Center
409 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D. New York, 2006)
MacGuire v. Elometa Corp.
189 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 1037, 152 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverstein-v-marine-midland-trust-co-nyappdiv-1956.