Stull v. Studebaker Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stull v. Studebaker Corp.

30 A.D.2d 527, 290 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3909

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

DecidedMay 23, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 527 (Stull v. Studebaker Corp.) 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

Stull v. Studebaker Corp., 30 A.D.2d 527, 290 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on November 17, 1967, granting plaintiff’s renewed motion to examine defendants before trial in this stockholders’ derivative action, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and motion denied. Plaintiff failed to establish the requisite special circumstances to warrant the pretrial examination sought. She did not present " factual allegations of evidentiary value to establish the charges of improper conduct”. (Mann v. Luke, 272 App. Div. 19, 23; Nomako v. Ashton, 20 A D 2d 331, 333-334.) The conflict of interest sought to be established by plaintiff is based upon conclusory allegations and information contained in proxy statements. This is insufficient. (Van Aalten v. Mack, 7 A D 2d 289.) Concur—Stevens, J. F., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, entered on November 17, 1967, granting plaintiff’s renewed motion to examine defendants before trial in this stockholders’ derivative action, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and motion denied. Plaintiff failed to establish the requisite special circumstances to warrant the pretrial examination sought. She did not present " factual allegations of evidentiary value to establish the charges of improper conduct”. (Mann v. Luke, 272 App. Div. 19, 23; Nomako v. Ashton, 20 A D 2d 331, 333-334.) The conflict of interest sought to be established by plaintiff is based upon conclusory allegations and information contained in proxy statements. This is insufficient. (Van Aalten v. Mack, 7 A D 2d 289.) Concur—Stevens, J. F., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 527, 290 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stull-v-studebaker-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack