Tosi v. Pastene & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tosi v. Pastene & Co.

34 A.D.2d 520, 308 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 520 (Tosi v. Pastene & 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

Tosi v. Pastene & Co., 34 A.D.2d 520, 308 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered October 31, 1969, denying motion by certain defendants to dismiss complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The challenge against the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action is readily rejected. We are not required at this time to determine the nature of the relief which may be awarded by the court on the basis of the allegations of the complaint. Although such allegations, including the alleged corporate mismanagement and the alleged wrongful acts of the individual defendants may not entitle the court to direct a dissolution of the foreign corporation involved (see Mook v. Berger, 26 A D 2d 925; 2 Hornstein, Corporation Law and Practice, § 821; 16A Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations [Perm, ed.], § 8097), the allegations nonetheless furnish the basis for other relief properly awardable by the court here. In the circumstances, where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the parties and there is appropriate basis for the granting of some relief to the plaintiffs in New York, the court should not reject jurisdiction of the action. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, entered October 31, 1969, denying motion by certain defendants to dismiss complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The challenge against the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action is readily rejected. We are not required at this time to determine the nature of the relief which may be awarded by the court on the basis of the allegations of the complaint. Although such allegations, including the alleged corporate mismanagement and the alleged wrongful acts of the individual defendants may not entitle the court to direct a dissolution of the foreign corporation involved (see Mook v. Berger, 26 A D 2d 925; 2 Hornstein, Corporation Law and Practice, § 821; 16A Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations [Perm, ed.], § 8097), the allegations nonetheless furnish the basis for other relief properly awardable by the court here. In the circumstances, where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the parties and there is appropriate basis for the granting of some relief to the plaintiffs in New York, the court should not reject jurisdiction of the action. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 520, 308 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tosi-v-pastene-co-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack