Stafford v. Stafford-Reeves, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stafford v. Stafford-Reeves, Inc.

31 A.D.2d 805, 298 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4520

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 805 (Stafford v. Stafford-Reeves, 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

Stafford v. Stafford-Reeves, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 805, 298 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered September 6, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate plaintiffs’ causes of action and to vacate judgment entered thereon and to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs-appellants to abide -the event. The record on this application reveals several factual questions which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Among these are the true nature of the assignment of .the so-called royalty agreement, whether outright or as security, and, if the latter, whether the debt secured has been paid. As to the first of these questions, defendant’s contention that facts antedating-the 1946 assignment are not material is erroneous. Furthermore, the restriction on corporate directors to bind the corporation by agreements which transfer the management of corporate affairs outside the .corporation has no application to the issues presented here. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Nunez and iSteuer, JJ.

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

Order entered September 6, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate plaintiffs’ causes of action and to vacate judgment entered thereon and to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs-appellants to abide -the event. The record on this application reveals several factual questions which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Among these are the true nature of the assignment of .the so-called royalty agreement, whether outright or as security, and, if the latter, whether the debt secured has been paid. As to the first of these questions, defendant’s contention that facts antedating-the 1946 assignment are not material is erroneous. Furthermore, the restriction on corporate directors to bind the corporation by agreements which transfer the management of corporate affairs outside the .corporation has no application to the issues presented here. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Nunez and iSteuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 805, 298 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stafford-v-stafford-reeves-inc-nyappdiv-1969.