Weinstock v. Goldwater

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstock v. Goldwater

88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17243

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

DecidedJune 1, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 911 (Weinstock v. Goldwater) 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

Weinstock v. Goldwater, 88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a shareholder’s derivative action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that a corporate policy of defendant Archie Enterprises, Inc., is “null and void”, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated May 8, 1981, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis of prematurity. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We find under the circumstances of this case that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as being premature. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In a shareholder’s derivative action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that a corporate policy of defendant Archie Enterprises, Inc., is “null and void”, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated May 8, 1981, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis of prematurity. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We find under the circumstances of this case that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as being premature. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstock-v-goldwater-nyappdiv-1982.