Weinstein v. Hartford Chemical Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstein v. Hartford Chemical Corp.

57 A.D.2d 554, 393 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11503

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

DecidedApril 4, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 554 (Weinstein v. Hartford Chemical 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

Weinstein v. Hartford Chemical Corp., 57 A.D.2d 554, 393 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to declare plaintiff to be the owner of one third of the shares of stock in the defendant corporation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 11, 1976, which, after a nonjury trial, declared plaintiff to be the owner of such stock. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs; it is declared that plaintiff did not prove her ownership of any shares of stock in the defendant corporation, and the complaint is otherwise dismissed. The trial court’s decision is not supported by the record. Plaintiff has not only failed to sustain her burden of proof with regard to any of the several different theories upon which she has predicated her claim to ownership of stock in the defendant corporation, but her varying positions are not supported by even a scintilla of evidence. We find that the testimony of Harold Rauch before a Federal court during a Securities Exchange Commission proceeding was internally contradictory and confused and that it bears little relation to the realities here as they may be gleaned from the documentary evidence produced. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to declare plaintiff to be the owner of one third of the shares of stock in the defendant corporation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 11, 1976, which, after a nonjury trial, declared plaintiff to be the owner of such stock. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs; it is declared that plaintiff did not prove her ownership of any shares of stock in the defendant corporation, and the complaint is otherwise dismissed. The trial court’s decision is not supported by the record. Plaintiff has not only failed to sustain her burden of proof with regard to any of the several different theories upon which she has predicated her claim to ownership of stock in the defendant corporation, but her varying positions are not supported by even a scintilla of evidence. We find that the testimony of Harold Rauch before a Federal court during a Securities Exchange Commission proceeding was internally contradictory and confused and that it bears little relation to the realities here as they may be gleaned from the documentary evidence produced. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 554, 393 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstein-v-hartford-chemical-corp-nyappdiv-1977.