Traktman v. Atlantic & Pacific Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Traktman v. Atlantic & Pacific Oil Co.

98 A.D.2d 719, 469 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21024

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 719 (Traktman v. Atlantic & Pacific Oil 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

Traktman v. Atlantic & Pacific Oil Co., 98 A.D.2d 719, 469 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a stockholder, inter alia, to obtain an audit of the defendant corporation’s books and records, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated November 16, 1982, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to punish it for contempt to the extent of directing it to produce certain of its corporate books and records. Order affirmed, with costs. Inasmuch as the defendant has failed to demonstrate a lack of good faith by plaintiff or any other reason why the documents requested should not be produced, Special Term’s order constitutes an appropriate exercise of discretion (Business Corporation Law, § 624; Matter of Crane Co. v Anaconda Co., 39 NY2d 14; O’Brien v O’Brien, 75 AD2d 641, mot for lv to app dsmd 51 NY2d 1006). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a stockholder, inter alia, to obtain an audit of the defendant corporation’s books and records, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated November 16, 1982, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to punish it for contempt to the extent of directing it to produce certain of its corporate books and records. Order affirmed, with costs. Inasmuch as the defendant has failed to demonstrate a lack of good faith by plaintiff or any other reason why the documents requested should not be produced, Special Term’s order constitutes an appropriate exercise of discretion (Business Corporation Law, § 624; Matter of Crane Co. v Anaconda Co., 39 NY2d 14; O’Brien v O’Brien, 75 AD2d 641, mot for lv to app dsmd 51 NY2d 1006). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 719, 469 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traktman-v-atlantic-pacific-oil-co-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack