Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga

54 A.D.2d 712, 387 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14303

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 712 (Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga) 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

Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga, 54 A.D.2d 712, 387 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for money damages, in which the complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendant Vincent Kosuga was a shareholder in the corporate plaintiff and breached an agreement among the shareholders under which each would lend his credit in support of the borrowings of the corporation, the said defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered August 5, 1975, as, in granting his cross motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the third, fourth and sixth causes of action, failed to also dismiss the remaining causes of action. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, on the record before us, it cannot be held: that, as a matter of law, the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd 2) and subdivision (b) of section 503 of the Business Corporation Law apply; that appellant has established a defense founded upon documentary evidence; and that the first, second, fifth and seventh causes of action of the complaint must be dismissed on appellant’s cross motion under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], pars 1, 7). The facts can only be wholly unraveled, and the truth fully and properly established, at a trial. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for money damages, in which the complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendant Vincent Kosuga was a shareholder in the corporate plaintiff and breached an agreement among the shareholders under which each would lend his credit in support of the borrowings of the corporation, the said defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered August 5, 1975, as, in granting his cross motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the third, fourth and sixth causes of action, failed to also dismiss the remaining causes of action. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, on the record before us, it cannot be held: that, as a matter of law, the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd 2) and subdivision (b) of section 503 of the Business Corporation Law apply; that appellant has established a defense founded upon documentary evidence; and that the first, second, fifth and seventh causes of action of the complaint must be dismissed on appellant’s cross motion under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], pars 1, 7). The facts can only be wholly unraveled, and the truth fully and properly established, at a trial. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 712, 387 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sleepy-hollow-produce-growers-inc-v-kosuga-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack