Warren v. Summit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warren v. Summit

23 A.D.2d 896, 260 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4088

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

DecidedMay 24, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 896 (Warren v. Summit) 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

Warren v. Summit, 23 A.D.2d 896, 260 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enjoin defendants from using the name “Presto” and for an accounting and damages, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 10, 1964 upon the court’s written decision, after a non jury trial, which dismissed the complaint upon the merits. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents. In our opinion, the record amply supports the finding below that no agreement was made among the [897]*897corporate shareholders not to nse the name “Presto” after the dissolution, but that the intention of the parties was that all the shareholders of the dissolving corporation could continue to use the art work of the corporation, including the word “Presto.” Beldock, P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to enjoin defendants from using the name “Presto” and for an accounting and damages, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 10, 1964 upon the court’s written decision, after a non jury trial, which dismissed the complaint upon the merits. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents. In our opinion, the record amply supports the finding below that no agreement was made among the [897]*897corporate shareholders not to nse the name “Presto” after the dissolution, but that the intention of the parties was that all the shareholders of the dissolving corporation could continue to use the art work of the corporation, including the word “Presto.” Beldock, P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 896, 260 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-summit-nyappdiv-1965.